# Managing Groups and Teams/Groupthink

**Question: What is groupthink and how can a team prevent it?**

Groupthink is a behavioral
pattern exhibited by team members in an attempt to reduce conflict and
reach consensus without critically analyzing an issue. In order for a
team to achieve a high performing status, it is imperative that team
members are fully aware of and make efforts to avoid falling victim to
groupthink.

## Definition

Groupthink occurs when group members give priority to sustaining
concordance and internal harmony above critical examination of the
issues under consideration.[^1] Groupthink refers to a deterioration of
mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from
in-group pressures.[^2] Irving Janis referred to groupthink as a mode of
thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a
cohesive in-group, when the members' striving for unanimity override
their motivation to realistically appraise alternative course of
action.[^3]

## History

![](GroupThink_Model.jpg "GroupThink_Model.jpg"){width="500"} Groupthink
has been used over the years to help understand group dynamics and why
certain groups are successful and others lead to disaster. A
considerable amount of social science literature shows that in
circumstances of extreme crisis, group contagion occasionally gives rise
to collective panic, violent acts of scapegoating, and other forms of
what could be called group madness.[^4] Many researchers feel that
groupthink arises out of highly cohesive groups (groups where there is a
lot of mutual liking and respect) that are put in extreme circumstances,
though there has been some debate about this conclusion (see Criticisms
of groupthink).

In the 1950's and 1960's, other social psychologists such as Leon
Festinger, Harold Kelley, and Stanley Schachter found that group
cohesiveness increases when there is more member participation and group
membership remains stable. Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, found that
when group cohesiveness is high, all members express solidarity, mutual
liking, and positive feelings about attending meeting and carrying out
the routine tasks of the group.[^5] Thus, highly cohesive groups are
often high performing under normal circumstances.

Wilfred Bion, an eminent group therapist, investigated to what extent
cohesion could also contribute to negative group outcomes. Bion
described how the efficiency of working groups can be negatively
affected by preconscious misconceptions of group members. His stated
that by sharing basic assumptions that preserve the group, group members
tend to lose regard for the work at hand and focus more on maintaining
positive group relations.[^6] The higher the group cohesiveness, the
more power the group has over norms, acceptance of goals, reduction in
member anxiety, and a heightened level of group member's
self-esteem.[^7]

In 1972, Irving L. Janis coined the term "groupthink" after the Newspeak
vocabulary used in George Orwell's book 1984. Janis was an American
research psychologist who studied at Yale University and was a professor
at the University of California, Berkeley. Janis' background in social
sciences paved the way for his Groupthink theory.

Groupthink has been linked to many famous disasters where group decision
making lead to the end result. Janis used historical events such as the
Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, and the escalation of the Vietnam War to
explain the characteristics of Groupthink in policy making. An
interesting aspect of Groupthink is that the theory is used to help
explain group dynamics after the event has taken place. To this date,
Groupthink has not been proven in a research study.

## Antecedent Conditions

According to Janis, there are three main antecedent conditions that
encourage groupthink tendencies to occur. When these three conditions
are present, the group is more suspect to groupthink.

The first condition is that decision makers constitute a cohesive group.
For example, if the decision makers in the group have been working
together for a long period of time and have had past successes, they
will usually operate as a cohesive group.

The second condition is there are structural faults in the organization.
Structural faults include: Insulation of the group, lack of traditional
impartial leadership, lack of norms requiring methodical procedures, and
homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.[^8]

The third condition is that the group is in a provocative situational
context. When a group experiences high stress from external threats the
context is created. The threats are usually compounded with the fact
that there is little hope of a better solution than what the leader of
the group is offering.[^9] Another factor that induces the provocative
situational context is low self-esteem within the group. The low
self-esteem is usually induced by recent failures, excessive
difficulties on decision-making that lowers each member's sense of
self-efficacy, and moral dilemmas.[^10]

## Symptoms

Irving L. Janis has identified eight main
Symptoms_of_Groupthink:
invulnerability, rationale, morality, stereotypes, pressure,
self-censorship, unanimity, and mind guards. The eight symptoms can be
divided into three specific types.[^11]:

-   Overestimation of the Group
    -   Illusion of invulnerability: This symptom can alleviate fears of
        failure and prevent unnerving fears of failure during a crisis.
    -   Belief in inherent morality of the group: The shared belief that
        "we are a good and wise group" inclines them to use group
        concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well
        as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. The members
        believe since the group's objectives are good any means we
        decide to use must be good as well.[^12]
-   Closed-Mindedness
    -   Collective Rationalization: The group will construct
        rationalizations in order to discount warnings and other forms
        of negative feedback that, taken seriously, might lead group
        members to reconsider their assumptions each time they recommit
        themselves to past decisions.[^13]
    -   Stereotypes of Out-Groups: This symptom is when the group uses
        undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents. This symptom
        enables the group to minimize decision conflicts between ethical
        values and expediency. Shared negative stereotypes of out-groups
        support the so-called "evil nature" of the enemy.[^14]
-   Pressures Toward Uniformity
    -   Self-Censorship: Victims of Groupthink avoid deviating from what
        appears to be group consensus. The group members will keep
        silent about their misgivings and even minimize to themselves
        the importance of their doubts.[^15]
    -   Illusion of Unanimity: An illusion of unanimity is shared within
        the group concerning all judgments expressed by members who
        speak in favor of the majority view. This symptom is supported
        by the false assumption that any individual who remains silent
        during any part of the discussion is in full accord with what
        the others are saying.[^16]
    -   Direct pressure on dissenters: Members of the group will apply
        direct pressure on any individual who momentarily expresses
        doubts about any of the group's shared illusions or who
        questions the validity of the arguments supporting a policy
        alternative favored by the majority.[^17]
    -   Self-appointed mind guards: This symptom protects the members
        from adverse information that might break the complacency they
        share about the effectiveness and morality of past
        decisions.[^18]

## Effects of Groupthink

Irving L. Janis calls the effects of groupthink "products". The products
are the consequences to poor decision making practices that lead to
inadequate solutions to the problems under discussion.[^19] There are
six products identified by Janis that are evident in groupthink
situations.

The first product is when the group limits its discussions to a few
alternative courses of action (often only two) without an initial survey
of all the alternatives that might be worthy of considerations.[^20] The
group ignores all possible solutions to an issue usually overlooking
better solutions.

A second product of groupthink is when the group fails to reexamine the
course of action initially preferred by the majority after they learn of
risks and drawbacks they had not considered originally.[^21] This
product is especially alarming because the group is not methodically
thinking through the consequences of their decisions. In government and
policy making situations, this product can have disastrous
repercussions.

The third product is when the members of a group spend little or no time
discussing whether there are not obvious gains they may have overlooked
or ways of reducing the seemingly prohibitive costs that made rejected
alternatives appear undesirable to them.[^22]

The fourth product is when the members of a group make little or no
attempt to obtain information from experts within their own
organizations who might be able to supply more precise estimates of
potential losses and gains.[^23] The members are afraid to find any
information that might sway the group from their decided course of
action.

The fifth product is when the members of a group show positive interest
in facts and opinions that support their preferred policy. In turn, they
tend to ignore facts and opinions that do not support their preferred
policy.[^24] Any information that supports the decision is embraced and
any information that disputes the decision is swept under the table. The
groupthink tendency prevails because the group does not want their
decision to be threatened in any way.

The sixth and final product identified by Janis is when the members of a
group spend little time deliberating about how the chosen policy might
be hindered by bureaucratic inertia, sabotaged by political opponents,
or temporarily derailed by common accidents. They fail to work out
contingency plans to cope with foreseeable setbacks that could endanger
the overall success of their chosen course.[^25]

## Ways to prevent groupthink

There are many different opinions on how to prevent groupthink. However
they all have the same underling theme: Create an open environment for
ideas and participation. There are five simple steps which can be taken
to create this environment:[^26][^27]

1.  Leaders should allow each member to challenge ideas and present
    objections.
2.  Members should talk about and solicit ideas with people outside the
    group.
3.  Outside experts should be invited to attend meetings.
4.  Avoid expressing opinions about the preferred outcome.
5.  Assign
    Devil\'s_Advocate
    at all meetings to challenge any and all ideas.

## Historical Examples

### Bay of Pigs Invasion

The idea for the
Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
was first suggested by John F. Kennedy's main political opponent,
Richard M. Nixon. As Vice President during the Eisenhower
administration, Nixon had proposed that the United States government
secretly send a trained group of Cuban exiles to Cuba to fight against
Castro. In March 1960, acting on Nixon's suggestion, President Dwight D.
Eisenhower directed the Central Intelligence Agency to organize Cuban
exiles in the United States into a unified political movement against
the Castro regime and to give military training to those who were
willing to return to their homeland to engage in guerrilla warfare. The
CIA put a large number of its agents to work on this clandestine
operation, and they soon evolved an elaborate plan for a military
invasion. Apparently without informing President Eisenhower, the CIA
began to assume in late 1960 that they could land a brigade of Cuban
exiles not as a band of guerrilla infiltrators but as an armed force to
carry out a full-scale invasion.

Two days after the inauguration in January 1961, President John F.
Kennedy and several leading members of his new administration were given
a detailed briefing about the proposed invasion by Allen Dulles, head of
the CIA, and General Lyman Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. During the next eighty days, a core group of presidential
advisers repeatedly discussed this inherited plan informally and in the
meeting of an advisory committee that included three Joint Chiefs of
Staff. In early April 1961, at one of the meetings with the President,
all the key advisers gave their approval to the CIA's invasion plan.
Their deliberations led to a few modifications of details, such as the
choice of the invasion site.

On April 17, 1961, the brigade of about fourteen hundred Cuban exiles,
aided by the United States Navy, Air Force, and the CIA, invaded the
swampy coast of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Nothing went as planned. On the
first day, none of the four ships containing reserve ammunition and
supplies arrived; the first two were sunk by planes in Castro's air
force, and the other two promptly fled. By the second day, the brigade
was completely surrounded by twenty thousand troops of Castro's
well-equipped army. By the third day, about twelve hundred members of
the brigade, comprising almost all who had not been killed, were
captured and ignominiously led off to prison camps.[^28]

Symptoms:

-   Overestimation of the Group
    -   The CIA felt that the Cuban exiles would carry out the invasion
        without any ground support from the United States.
    -   They also felt that Casto's army was so weak that the Cuban
        exiles could hold his army at the beachhead.
    -   This plays into the first example that the Cuban exiles would
        carry out the invasion no matter what.
-   Closed-Midedness
    -   They assumed that if the brigade did not succeed they could just
        retreat to the Escambray Mountains and reinforce guerrilla units
        that were there.
    -   They also assumed that the invasion would spark uprisings behind
        the lines, and that those uprisings would support the exiles and
        prompt the top poling of the Castro regime.
-   Pressures Toward Uniformity
    -   The invasion was actually an idea from the Presidency of
        Dwight D. Eisenhower, which had not been implemented. Once
        John F. Kennedy became President he took over the invasion and
        was given a brief overview of what they had planned. Also, the
        briefing was given by two members of the original group that had
        devised the plan. The new Presidency most likely felt as though
        they needed to implement the plan from the prior Presidency, and
        as a result went forward with the invasion without thinking
        through the entire situation.

Some of the effects of groupthink that were apparent in the Bay of Pigs
example were:

-   The group did not reexamine the course of action initially preferred
    by the majority. As mentioned above, this was a result of President
    John F. Kennedy taking over once he had became President and not
    reevaluating the situation and decisions that had been made.
-   The group also limited discussion to a few alternative courses of
    action. To this degree Janis Jarvis mentions that several members of
    the existing group debriefed the President on the plan of action.

### Titanic

The RMS Titanic was an
Olympic-class passenger liner owned by the White Star Line and was built
at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, in what is now Northern
Ireland. At the time of her construction, she was the largest passenger
steamship in the world.

Shortly before midnight on 14 April 1912, four days into the ship\'s
maiden voyage, Titanic struck an iceberg and sank two hours and forty
minutes later, early on 15 April 1912. The sinking resulted in the
deaths of 1,517 of the 2,223 people on board, making it one of the
deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history. The high casualty
rate was due in part to the fact that, although complying with the
regulations of the time, the ship did not carry enough lifeboats for
everyone aboard. The ship had a total lifeboat capacity of 1,178 people,
although her maximum capacity was 3,547.

The Titanic was designed by some of the most experienced engineers, and
used some of the most advanced technologies available at the time. It
was popularly believed to have been unsinkable.[^29] It was a great
shock to many that, despite the extensive safety features, the Titanic
sank. The frenzy on the part of the media about Titanic\'s famous
victims, the legends about the sinking, the resulting changes to
maritime law, and the discovery of the wreck have contributed to the
continuing interest in, and notoriety of, the
Titanic.[^30]![](RMS_Titanic_3.jpg "RMS_Titanic_3.jpg"){width="250"}

Symptoms

-   Overestimation of the Group
    -   The Titanic was viewed as being the safest ship ever built and
        therefore was viewed as being "unsinkable". As a result the ship
        was only equipped with 20 lifeboats, which was only enough to
        carry half of the ships total passengers.
    -   The rudder construction was also determined to be much smaller
        than needed in comparison to the size of the ship.
-   Closed-Mindedness
    -   The SS California, another ship in the area, had warned the
        Titanic by radio of the ice packs, for which it had stopped for
        the night. The Titanic ignored the warnings.
-   Pressures Toward Uniformity
    -   Everyone bought into the idea that the Titanic was "unsinkable".

Some of the effects that were apparent in the sinking of the Titanic
include:

-   Members showed positive interest in facts and opinions that
    supported their preferred policy, such as the fact that the Titanic
    was the largest passenger ship of its time and the opinion that the
    Titanic was unsinkable. While at the same time ignoring facts such
    as the fact that the rudder construction was too small and the
    opinion from the SS California which had stopped for the night
    because of the ice packs.

## Recent Examples

### 9-11-2001

![](National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg "National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg")

The unfortunate truth is that, especially in the case of analyzing and
recognizing Groupthink, hindsight is 20/20.

Several events (real and imagined, catastrophic and global) in the last
ten years possess Groupthink symptoms. Though it is impossible to
pinpoint Groupthink as the catalyst for these events, it is interesting
to consider how it may have contributed to their development.

Take, for example: attacks in 2001. "Warnings about Al Qaeda may have
gone unheeded as the incoming administration may have unwisely ranked
the Al Qaeda threat somewhere lower than other objectives like national
missile defense, China and the ousting of Saddam Hussein," suggests a
writer who wrote about the attacks. Paul Wolfowitz is also quoted as
saying, \"You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these
things,\"[^31] before the attacks occurred. These quotes suggest the
presence of an illusion to invulnerability; rationalizing warnings to
change the group's assumptions; and stereotyping those who are opposed
to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or
stupid. Whether the other characteristics of Groupthink were present is
a question left to those who were present in the national security
meetings.

### Y2K

Another example can be found in the
Y2K scare prevalent in 1999. In this
instance the group is different than others discussed: instead of from a
centralized unit of individuals, Y2K was perpetuated by programmers
across the globe. Sam Meddis had this to say about Y2K February of 1999.
\"My point is that Y2K has already consumed more effort, money and angst
than is merited. At this point the problem has less to do with computer
code than with psychology. If we march on like lemmings convinced that
major disaster is inevitable, then our hysterical actions might make it
so. We\'ll have our doomsayers, not our machines, to thank for
that.\"[^32]

Five years after the year 2000 arrived, Larry Seltzer, of eWeek, had
this to say, \"What we all should have argued for at the time was
perspective: A focus on worst-case planning is usually
unwarranted.\"[^33]

A USA Today columnist who resisted Y2K paranoia received this letter
from a programmer:![](Y2K_Logo.gif "Y2K_Logo.gif")

-   \"First, the bad news: this problem is real, very big, and isn\'t
    going to be fixed in time...There is no likelihood whatsoever that
    the banking system is going to make it, nor the power grid as a
    whole. Therefore, we are in for a major disaster. The good news? You
    (and all the other pollyannas who have your head stuck in the sand)
    will stop consuming valuable resources, like air. Too bad that you
    may convince others not to protect themselves as well, but I guess
    that\'s another example of Darwinism in action. By the way, I am a
    computer programmer with almost 30 years experience in the field,
    and I have nothing to sell regarding Y2K. I wonder if you can twist
    that into some reason that my opinions should be disregarded?\"[^34]

This letter gives interesting insight into this particular programmer's
thought process and potentially other programmers as well. The quote
reveals unquestioning belief in the morality of the group, stereotyping
those who are opposed to the group, illusions of unanimity among group
members, and pressure on the columnist to conform to the group's
thinking. This programmer is, in affect, playing the role of a mind
guard---shielding the group from dissenting information.

## Criticisms of groupthink

Despite the widespread acceptance of the groupthink theory, it is not
without criticism. In his essay "So Right It\'s Wrong: Groupthink and
the Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making"[^35] Robert
Baron explores skepticism around the groupthink model by scholars
involved in further analysis and testing of the theory. Baron suggests
that the strength and acceptance of the model is based on popular
culture's predisposition toward a familiar social scenario and symptoms
rather than on scientific findings.

Scientific study of the groupthink theory is rare as he states, "The
majority of reports take the form of group decision case studies or
historical sampling studies." His research sites papers from academics
familiar with the groupthink theory, such as a 1980 Longley and Pruit
paper proposing that "the dangers posed by selective historical
analysis, the possibility that the groupthink symptoms in Janis's
historical examples (particularly self censorship of dissent) might be
more a result of group stage (early formation) than a function of
Janis's antecedent conditions (crisis, cohesion, directive leadership,
etc.) and the argument that suppression of dissent might be functional
in certain group settings."[^36]

He also sites studies which provide significant supporting evidence
contrary to the model. Data taken from studies such as R.J. Brown's
study on "Minimal group situations and intergroup discrimination"
(1980)[^37] include scientific testing of the model with conclusions
that dispute some of Janis's claims. "It clearly is not the case, as
Janis had surmised, that cohesion leads to poor decision making. Indeed,
all the evidence suggests that it is unrelated to decision quality or
may even be associated with better decision processes." In addition
Teltlock ( 1991) found that "neither degree of crisis nor cohesion was
reliably related to decision quality of major national policy
decisions."[^38]

Baron goes on to further investigate the groupthink theory and
historical scientific testing. He dissects Janis's conditions for
groupthink and proposes a revised model. His "ubiquity model" identified
three antecedent conditions for groupthink phenomena to occur, and
separates these from less well researched "amplifying conditions."

`   Antecedent Conditions:`

1.  Social Identification: Allegiance and social identity with the group
    forms because of common goals, history, or shared fate. Information
    has more influence when it originates from this in-group source as
    it receives more attention and elaboration.
2.  Salient Norms: Norms emerge within the group serving to bias
    discussion towards commonly held information, a symptom similar to
    Stasser's "hidden profile paradigm."[^39]
3.  Situational Low Self Efficacy. When presented with especially
    challenging problems, group members will refrain from proposing
    non-conforming ideas unless they are very confident in its success,
    and this confidence is reduced when the problem is more challenging
    resulting in suppression of counter arguments, and elevation of
    in-group ideas.

Brown concludes that these three phenomenon are far more common than
Janis proposes and are "necessary and sufficient" for groupthink to
occur. He identifies other aspects of Janis's model merely as
"amplifying conditions" which may decrease decision quality but are not
necessary for groupthink symptoms to present themselves. Amplifying
Conditions

1.  Threat or Crisis -- The time consuming democratic process becomes
    dangerous when rapid and deceive action is critical.
2.  Intense Cohesion -- Crisis stimulates dependency needs
3.  Member Insecurity -- Heightens desire for social identification
    making members more susceptible to group norms.
4.  Directive Leadership -- Strong leadership more clearly identifies
    and establishes group norms, strengthening groupthink reactions.

This model accounts for persistence of groupthink phenomenon in even the
most minor of group settings, rather than the intense and historically
significant cases that Janis's model focuses on. Barons "ubiquity
model," proposes that the majority of Janis's conditions are "not
necessary to trigger such phenomena as polarized judgment, out-group
stereotyping, self censorship, and the illusion of consensus." He shows
that amplifying conditions need further laboratory study to show any
meaningful relationship to groupthink phenomena. The conclusion that
groupthink symptoms are far more widespread than Janis's claims and that
many of the symptoms are not an invariant feature of group decision
making but rather amplifying conditions that require more study provides
a less well known, but more well supported theory.

## Conclusion

An interesting point to consider is that when groups fail, we call the
culprit Groupthink; when groups succeed, we call the culprit
Synergy. Could an observer
diagnose a group's behavior as Groupthink versus synergy before the
outcome is realized? Or are groups consigned to wait for the end before
recognizing what behavior was involved? The danger of reflecting back is
that people may focus only on supporting evidence---blaming Groupthink
or synergy, as the case may be. The luging accident in the 2010 Winter
Olympics carries the thrill of Groupthink analysis, whereas the
commercial success of Disney's Animation Studios during the 1990's is
heralded as pure synergy.

The answer to this question may some day be decided, but the difficulty
in ensuring synergistic results is sure to continue. Synergy and
Groupthink appear to be two faces on one coin, where a combination of
external forces contributes in deciding which side lands face-up. As
Groupthink is a relatively new study (since the 1970's) perhaps
continued research will weigh the chances so that when the coin is
tossed, we can safely call out, "Synergy."

## References

[^1]: 1.Kroon, Marceline B.R. Effects of accountability on groupthink
    and intergroup relations: Laboratory and field studies. Amsterdam:
    Thesis Publishers, 1992.

[^2]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^3]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^4]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^5]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^6]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^7]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^8]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^9]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^10]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^11]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^12]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page 443.

[^13]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page
    442-443.

[^14]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page 444.

[^15]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page 445.

[^16]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page
    445-446.

[^17]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page
    444-445.

[^18]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page 446.

[^19]: Janis, Irving L. Groups: Pressures, decisions, and conflicts.
    "Groupthink." Psychology Today Magazine, November 1971. Page 447.

[^20]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^21]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^22]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^23]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^24]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^25]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^26]: Janis, Irving L. Victims of Groupthink. Boston. Houghton Mifflin
    Company, 1972, page 148-149

[^27]: <http://www.hodu.com/groupthink.shtml>

[^28]: Janis, Irving L. Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company,
    1982.

[^29]: Richard Howells The Myth of the Titanic

[^30]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic>

[^31]: Zeller, Tom. "The World; So Many Voices, So Many Versions" New
    York Times. Published: April 11,
    2004;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/weekinreview/the-world-so-many-voices-so-many-versions.html?scp=2&sq=administration%20knew%20about%209/11&st=cse;
    Accessed March 1, 2010.

[^32]: Meddis, Sam Vincent. \"Don\'t Hold Breath for Y2K Disaster.\" USA
    TODAY. Feb. 15,
    1999.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ccc0215.htm. Accessed
    February 21, 2010.

[^33]: Seltzer, Larry. \"Some Perspective 5 Years After
    Y2K.\" http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Some- Perspective-5-Years-After-Y2K.
    2005-01-03. Accessed February 21, 2010.

[^34]: Meddis.

[^35]: Baron, R. S. (2005). So Right It\'s Wrong: Groupthink and the
    Ubiquitous Nature of Polarized Group Decision Making. In Zanna, Mark
    P (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 37.
    (219-253). San Diego. Elsevier Academic Press.

[^36]: Longley, J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1980). Groupthink: A critique of
    Janis\'s theory. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and
    Social Psychology (pp. 507-513). Newbury CA: Sage.

[^37]: Brown, R. J., Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1980) Minimal group
    situations and intergroup discrimination: Comments on the paper by
    Aschenbrenner and Shaeffer. European Journal of Social Psychology.
    10, 399-414.

[^38]: Tetlock, P. E., (1979). Identifying victims of groupthink from
    public statements of decision makers. Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology, 37, 1314-1324.

[^39]: Stasser, G., & Stewart, D.D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles
    by decision-making groups: solving a problem vs. making a judgment.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63:426--34


# Managing Groups and Teams/Stereotyping

## Stereotypes

Stereotypes are general assumptions individuals hold against other
individuals of a different socioeconomic or characteristic group. Those
who appear different than us are most generally stereotyped under
another more or less fortunate grouped based primarily on image; most
generally wrongfully categorized. For instance different cultures base a
lot of creditability of another country based upon what they may see in
the media; this is never quite as it seems. Where did stereotyping come
from?

## History of Stereotypes

Prior to a discussion and analysis of stereotypes, it is important to
recognize if stereotypes exist in society. Many experts argue that
stereotypes are developed at an early age influenced by family friends
and social surroundings. For example, if an individual grows up with
minimal exposure to a certain minority race, then the media plays a more
crucial role in shaping that individual's perception of that minority
race. Stereotypes tend to exist when there is a limited or no mixing of
different cultures within ones socioeconomic surrounding; also referred
to as the unknown culture. Some experts believe that stereotypes are
"are actually a neverending chain of thoughts."[^1] It is an inherent
cultural ignorance that disposes individuals to misconceived
perceptions.

Those misconceived perceptions can have a negative and positive impact
on one's life. Negative impacts exist where "If one group may assume the
other group is deceitful and aggressive, they themselves will respond in
a deceitful and aggressive manner, leading the opponent to respond in
the like, thus confirming the initial group\'s perception creating a
self-fulfilling prophecy."[^2] Negative stereotyping can lead to those
being discriminated against to feel less accepted, thereby creating an
innate disruptive behavior and creating feeling of lower self-worth.
Such low emotion creates in an individual "feeling of inferiority and
lower self-worth."[^3] Positive impacts occur where there is an increase
in moral and performance because the individual feels they are part of
an accepted group.

Stereotypes have traditionally been defined as "something conforming to
a fixed or general pattern, a standardized mental picture that is held
in common by members of a group representing an oversimplified opinion,
prejudiced attitude, or critical judgment."[^4] Stereotypes were first
branded by Firmin Didot as a term for printing, creating a duplicate
impression, original typographical impression. However, they were later
associated with pictures in people's heads of one's perception of what
is right and what is wrong. Stereotypes tend to be exaggerated beliefs
about specific social groups or types of individuals. We develop our
stereotypes from a sense of learned perception from family, friends,
religion, and the media. These stereotypes we possess are "standardized,
simplified conception of groups based from prior assumptions."[^5]
Stereotypes have been classified into two groups: inter-group and
out-group. Inter-group stereotypes are those "where personal identity
and self-esteem are derived from groups to which they belong or can
identify. They are more normal and superior."[^6] On the other hand,
out-groups have been defined as "less attractive, outcasts or all other
groups generally seen as inferior to inter-groups.[^7]

Stereotypes have continued to endure during the passage of time.
Stereotypes will constantly persist until people are better educated
about the differences between groups and cultures. Some experts feel
that stereotypes are influenced by the government and will continue to
exist as we continue to "divide and conquer".[^8] With the high
influence that the media puts on socioeconomic cultures, stereotyping
will continue to exist so far as those in less diverse geographical
areas rely on what outside influences they receive regarding various
cultures. The fear of the unknown is what drives the existence of
stereotypes. Stereotypes continue to be generated from individuals who
fear others that are of a different race or culture, the unknown. The
fear of the unknown, also referred to as the "Non-uniformity, tends to
create misunderstanding."[^9] In addition, "the competitive aspect of
human nature supports the innate need to prove oneself more worthy than
another. The differences between people make it easier to compare to one
another."[^10] Until society can learn to be more tolerant of those that
are different, stereotyping will continue to exist.

## Problems Caused By Stereotypes

A number of problems tend to develop from the assimilation of
stereotypes in society. Stereotypes cause various problems that impede
the proper functioning of teams. One such problem is group divisions.
Demographic characteristics such as age, ethnicity and gender are
"easily observable and team members use them to attribute specific
patterns of thought, attitudes and behaviors to themselves and others.
Some suggest that most people are attracted to, and prefer to be with,
others who are demographically similar to themselves."[^11] Group
divisions tend to cause "harmful divisions within organizations because
of the lack of coordination and support."[^12] An additional problem
caused by stereotypes is missed opportunities. A perceiver of a
situation assumes that the target possesses the same characteristics of
other members of the target's category stereotype and incorporates those
attributes into his or her impression of the target. By attributing
attributes, the "perceiver places the target into a category, thereby
possibly missing out on the target's real strengths."[^13]

Often, successful managers are viewed as more similar to men than to
women on attributes considered critical to effective work performance
such as leadership ability, self-confidence, objectivity, forcefulness,
and ambition. Essentially, "women are not believed to possess the
qualities essential for success in management positions, possibly
causing companies to miss out on promoting women to important management
positions."[^14] The last problem caused by stereotypes is a negative
impact on employees and the employee\'s performance. When managers who
are prejudiced against certain groups allow those prejudices to
influence how they treat employees, "the prejudice becomes
institutionalized and affected individuals become systematically
disadvantaged."[^15] Research has shown that stereotypes can have a
negative impact on employee feelings and behavior, inhibiting the
employee from performing to the best of his or her abilities.
Stereotypes also "make employees work harder, but not better. In sum,
when stereotypes are present, performance declines."[^16] The stereotype
threat describes the experience of a person who is aware of a stereotype
about his or her identity group suggesting shortfalls in performance on
the given task. This awareness can "have a disruptive effect on
performance."[^17] Making salient negative stereotypes about both black
and white athletes has the potential "to cause poorer athletic
performance relative to when they perform an athletic task in a positive
or neutral evaluative context."[^18]

## How to Identify Stereotypes in Team Members

Stereotypes can affect all individuals in a team. Two common stereotype
issues that individuals may succumb to are stereotype threat and social
identity theory. Stereotype threat has been defined as "A fear
individuals experience when they are at risk of confirming a negative
stereotype that is held about their group.\" Steele and Aronson in this
definition are referring to any group that an individual may identify
with i.e.: gender, religion, ethnicity, etc."[^19] There are a number of
factors that cause stereotypes to affect individuals in a team. The
person must view themselves, or be viewed by others as a high performer.
The individual feels as though others in the team have high expectations
for their performance. In addition, the individual must have a strong
identity with the stereotyped group. This person must also "be in a
situation where others might question their abilities."[^20] The last
factor is that "those individuals who are most easily affected are those
who expect discrimination or who believe that a stereotype is
legitimate."[^21] Stereotype threat can affect individuals, but it is
difficult to identify.

There are several effects caused by stereotype threat. One effect can be
the self-fulfilling prophecy. The self-fulfilling prophecy exists where
"Individuals identifying with a stereotyped group are so concerned that
their actions will have negative implications concerning everyone in the
group. This stress can inevitably affect their performance which brings
on the results they most hoped to avoid."[^22] In fact, studies have
shown that stereotyping in teams "can limit working memory and self
monitoring capabilities."[^23]

Another common problem with stereotypes in groups is social identity
theory. The social identity theory has been defined as "Individuals gain
their identity from the groups to which they perceive membership."[^24]
Factors that are attributed to the social identity theory include
"Individuals define themselves by the social groups to which they belong
then they work to elevate themselves further by drawing comparisons
between their group and those not in the group. This is called in-group
vs. out-group."[^25] The effect that the social identity theory has on
teams is that "By classifying people as in group/out group this leads to
discrimination of members of the out group."[^26] Teams will suffer if
individual team members do not treat each other with respect and accept
each person's differences.

## Managing Stereotypes

There are various ways to ineffectively manage stereotypes. One
ineffective way of managing stereotypes is through stereotype
inhibition. While individuals who were motivated have been "shown to
make fewer stereotype connections in situations in which they would
otherwise activate stereotypes,"[^27] it can actually "lead to increased
stereotyping, as a rebound effect leads to more increasing after
stereotypes were suppressed."[^28] An additional ineffective way of
managing stereotypes is through increasing familiarity. The Intergroup
Contact Theory proposed by Gordon W. Allport in 1954 stated that
interpersonal contact could reduce stereotypes. However, contact alone
is not sufficient because "individuals not conforming to stereotypes
will be rejected from the category and placed in a sub category."[^29]
Anxiety and threat levels can increase prejudice, while additional
goals, such as equality among the different groups, common goals, and a
lack of competition, can "lead to intergroup friendship and structured
optimal contact, thereby leading to the best results."[^30]

Effective methods to manage stereotypes include mental imagery, where
recipients using counterstereotypic mental imagery were able to reduce
implicit stereotypes. By stopping implicit stereotypes from happening,
the judgment or stereotypical behavior is avoided. Preventing the
implicit stereotypes from occurring "halts the suppressing of
stereotypes which can lead to the rebound effect."[^31] Perspective
taking is an effectively proven method to manage stereotypes. The
process of taking another's perspective to focus on situation
constraints and influences are helpful in explaining their behavior
without resorting to stereotypes. This helps other groups to "become
part of your own in-group and leads to more positive associations with
the group."[^32] An additional method of effective management of
stereotypes is superordinate goal. When two groups have stereotypes
towards each other, the introduction of a superordinate goal that
depends on both groups for success has been shown to lead to
cooperation, reduced friction, and changed attitudes toward the
out-group. Friendships "were also formed with members of
out-groups."[^33] The last effective method is to eliminate stereotype
threats. Studies have shown that introducing negative stereotypes can
lead to poor performance. Social identities become active when
stereotypes are available and apparent. By eliminating stereotypes and
introducing positive associations, overall team performance can be
improved.

## Conclusion

Stereotypes have been a part of our culture since the beginning of time.
They will continue to exist indefinitely. The true test would be how do
we continue to create a better worldly understanding of the differences
between each other? By recognizing the personal stereotypes we hold
against each other and how we ourselves are being stereotyped, we can
begin to understand one another and better communicate our beliefs and
positions more clearly.

## References

[^1]: Wikipedia, "Stereotype" Theories
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stereotype) Retrieved 2010-02-07, pp
    3.

[^2]: Burgess, Heidi, Beyond Intracability.Org,
    "Stereotypes/Characterization Frames" October 2003

[^3]: Elliott, Jane, "Blue Eyes Brown Eyes Exercise",
    (http://www.janeelliott.com/workshop.htm) Retrieved 2010-02-14.

[^4]: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. "stereotype"
    (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotype) Retrieved
    2010-2-14

[^5]: Wikipedia, "Stereotype" Etymology
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stereotype) Retrieved 2010-02-07, pp
    1.

[^6]: Wikipedia, "Stereotype" Dynamics
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stereotype) Retrieved 2010-02-07, pp
    1.

[^7]: Wikipedia, "Stereotype" Dynamics
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stereotype) Retrieved 2010-02-07, pp
    1.

[^8]: Enrolled Mohawk Native, Yahoo Answers. "Why do stereotypes
    continue to exist?",
    (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308155312AAn3QPK)
    Retrieved 2010-02-14.

[^9]: Shields, C.J., Harris, K., (2007). "Technology Education: Three
    Reasons Stereotypes Persist". Purdue University. Volume 44. Number
    2.

[^10]: Collins, Tammy. "Why racists still exist" Helium Society &
    Lifestyle: Ethnicity and Gender.
    (http://www.helium.com/items/160035-why-racists-still-exist)
    Retrieved 2010-02-14.

[^11]: Darnold, Todd C., Kim A. McCarthy and Anne S. York. "Teaming in
    Biotechnology Commercialisation: The Diversity-Performance
    Connection and How University Programmes Can Make a Difference."
    Journal of Commercial Biotechnology Vol. 15, Issue 1 ( Jan 2009):
    3-11. (Darnold 5).

[^12]: Diekmann, Kristina. "The Power of Inter-Group Relations" Lecture.
    Professor and David Eccles Faculty Fellow, Dept. of Management,
    University of Utah.

[^13]: Kulik, Carol T., Elissa L. Perry, and Loriann Roberson. "The
    Multiple-Category Problem: Category Activation and Inhibition in the
    Hiring Process." Academy of Management Review Vol. 32, Issue 2 (Apr.
    2007): 529-548. (Kulik 529).

[^14]: Block, Caryn J., Madeline E. Heilman, Richard F. Martell and
    Michael C. Simon. "Has Anything Changed? Current Characterizations
    of Men, Women, and Managers" Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 74,
    Issue 6 (Dec. 1989): 935-943. (Block 935).

[^15]: Kulik, Carol T., and Loriann Roberson. "Stereotype Threat at
    Work." Academy of Management Perspectives Vol. 21, Issue 2 (May
    2007): 24-40. (Kulik and Roberson 26).

[^16]: Kulik, Carol T., and Loriann Roberson. "Stereotype Threat at
    Work." Academy of Management Perspectives Vol. 21, Issue 2 (May
    2007): 24-40. (Kulik and Roberson 26).

[^17]: Kulik, Carol T., and Loriann Roberson. "Stereotype Threat at
    Work." Academy of Management Perspectives Vol. 21, Issue 2 (May
    2007): 24-40. (Kulik and Roberson 26).

[^18]: Darley, J.M., C. Lynch, M. Sjomeling, and J. Stone. "Stereotype
    Threat Effects on Black and White Athletic Performance" Journal of
    Personality and Social Psychology 77 (1999): 1213-1227. (Darley
    1224).

[^19]: \"Stereotype Threat.\" International Encyclopedia of the Social
    Sciences. Thomson Gale. 2008. HighBeam Research. 10 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>.

[^20]: \"A psychological effect of stereotypes.(3 COUNTERING STEREOTYPES
    BY CHANGING THE RULES).\" Regional Review. Federal Reserve Bank of
    Boston. 2005. HighBeam Research. 10 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>

[^21]: \"Stereotype Threat.\" International Encyclopedia of the Social
    Sciences. Thomson Gale. 2008. HighBeam Research. 10 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>.

[^22]: \"A psychological effect of stereotypes.(3 COUNTERING STEREOTYPES
    BY CHANGING THE RULES).\" Regional Review. Federal Reserve Bank of
    Boston. 2005. HighBeam Research. 10 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>

[^23]: \"Stereotype Threat.\" International Encyclopedia of the Social
    Sciences. Thomson Gale. 2008. HighBeam Research. 10 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>

[^24]: \"Social Identification.\" International Encyclopedia of the
    Social Sciences. Thomson Gale. 2008. HighBeam Research. 15 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>.

[^25]: \"Social Identification.\" International Encyclopedia of the
    Social Sciences. Thomson Gale. 2008. HighBeam Research. 15 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>.

[^26]: \"Social Identification.\" International Encyclopedia of the
    Social Sciences. Thomson Gale. 2008. HighBeam Research. 15 Feb. 2010
    \<<http://www.highbeam.com>\>.

[^27]: Frograss, Joseph P., Simon M. Laham and Kipling D. Williams.
    Social Motivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes. Cambridge
    University Press, 2005.

[^28]: WBodenhausen, Galen V., C. Neil Macrae and Alan B. Milne. \"
    Saying \"No\" to Unwanted Thoughts: Self-Focus and the Regulation of
    Mental Life.\" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998 Vol
    74: 578-589.

[^29]: Hamburger, Yair. "The Contact Hypothesis Reconsidered: Effects of
    the Atypical Outgroup Member on the Outgroup Stereotype." Basic and
    Applied Social Psychology, 1994 Vol. 15.

[^30]: Pettigrew, Thomas F. and Linda R. Tropp A META-ANALYTIC TEST AND
    REFORMULATION OF INTERGROUP CONTACT THEORY February 2010
    <http://www.iq.harvard.edu/files/iqss/old/PPBW/tropp.pdf>.

[^31]: Blair, Irene V.; Jennifer E. Ma, and Alison P Lenton. "Imagining
    stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through
    mental imagery." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001
    Vol 81(5): 828-841.

[^32]: Galinsky, Adam D, and Gordon B. Moskowitz. "Perspective-taking:
    Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and
    in-group favoritism." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
    2000 Vol 78(4), 708-724.

[^33]: Muzafer Sherif, "Superordinate goals in the reduction of
    intergroup conflict.\" American Journal of Sociology, 1958: 63,
    349-356.


# Managing Groups and Teams/Team Personalities

## Achieving High Performance Through Diverse Personalities

### Introduction and Scope

Diversity in personality is like adding color to an otherwise
black-and-white television screen. High-definition, surround-sound,
plasma TV is much more enjoyable than grandpa's fuzzy, black-and-white
mono speaker TV. The scope of this chapter is to address the question of
diversity in personality and demonstrate that it is not only possible
but also recommended to achieve high performance through diversity in
personality. We discuss the ways to identify personality, contributor
personalities, and inhibitor personalities. We offer considerations and
limitations to personality profiling. We also provide links to
professional resources and consultant firms specializing in personality
diversity. Finally in this chapter we provide references and credible
sources for this material. Welcome to our wiki book chapter, enjoy.

![](oldtv.jpg "oldtv.jpg")

### Why Personality Diversity Is Important

There can be great energy harnessed from team members' different
personality traits if managed properly. Leaders must possess the skills
to build their teams around the right personalities and to manage those
personalities. We all see the world from our own unique perspective, our
own paradigm. When we're part of a team, we bring that paradigm to the
team environment. Good and bad personality traits within a team can
offset one another and build on each other and lead to synergies. Rather
than ask each team member to conform to a group norm, leaders must
recognize and utilize personality differences to ensure high
performance.

Although some argue that personality classification is simply an attempt
to \"quantify the unquantifiable,\" studying and recognizing different
personality types can help you work more effectively with your peers.
Temet Nosce Learning more
about your own personality traits can help you understand your own
strengths and weaknesses, which can help in selecting team members that
will complement you. Learning about others\' personalities can help you
develop the ability to view situations from their perspectives and
improve your own *psychological peripheral vision* (Butler, 2000), which
can be a crucial management skill to help make the team successful.

There are several characteristics of successful teams. One such
characteristic is diversity in team members. Diversity in culture,
background, age, and ethnicity are important for high performing teams,
but so too is personality diversity. All teams are made up of a diverse
range of personalities, but it is the high performing teams that
leverage their personality differences and mitigate and manage inhibitor
personalities, to achieve their common goal. Think about high performing
sports teams and there is likely to be a cast of characters with unique
personalities. Members of the Chicago Bulls in the 1990s were full of
eccentric personalities. Dennis Rodman was the outspoken flamboyant
player, Scottie Pippen was the often aloof team member and Michael
Jordan was the fierce competitor. Each player was a critical piece to
the Bulls\' championship team puzzle. Each had his personality strengths
and weaknesses. Their coach and leader, Phil Jackson, harnessed their
strengths and managed their weaknesses toward a common goal. The Bulls
won six championships and Phil Jackson became known more as a Zen master
than an NBA coach. He later went on to win three more championships with
the Lakers, successfully managing two diverse superstars in Shaquille
O'Neal and Kobe Bryant. Jackson is widely recognized for his leadership
ability and, specifically, his ability to motivate athletes with strong
personalities to work as a team.

### Achieving High Performance: The Real Reason

Emotional intelligence is the ability to use emotions effectively and
many believe EI is the primary that determines high performance. The
first academic definition of emotional intelligence was published in
1990 by Peter Salovey and Jack Mayer, of Yale University and University
of New Hampshire, respectively (Freedman and Everett).

Meanwhile and since the publication - researchers and academics,
practitioners and consultants, and companies are investigating new ways
to use their understanding of emotional intelligence to elevate
professional and personal success. Why? Daniel Goleman, author of the
best-selling book *Working with Emotional Intelligence*, estimates that
IQ accounts for only 4% to 25% on how well people perform at work and
that the other 75% to 96% left unexplained can be, largely, attributed
to emotional intelligence.

Goleman states that emotional competence is the more accurate predictor
of the most successful people -- not IQ. For example, PepsiCo, conducted
a pilot project where executives selected for high emotional
intelligence competencies outperformed their colleagues, delivering a
10% in productivity, 87% decrease in executive turnover (\$4m), \$3.75
million added economic value, and over 1000% return on investment
(Freedman & Everett). Not surprisingly, Johnson and Johnson came to the
same striking conclusion: "Emotional competence differentiates
successful leaders." So what competencies or factors go into the making
of the successful leader or individual? Goleman, created the following
framework to define emotional competence:

  Personal Competence   Social Competence
  --------------------- -------------------
  Self-Awareness        Empathy
  Self-Regulation       Social Skills
  Motivation

  : **The Emotional Competence Framework**

People with high performance have a strong combination of personal and
social competences -- in essence, high emotional intelligence. So, teams
that are high performing will have leaders and members who are a blend
of Goleman's emotional competencies.

## How to Identify Different Personalities

There are many ways to identify different personalities: look, listen,
smell, touch, taste, and perceive. Obviously, some of these methods
might not be the most appropriate or useful, especially in the
workplace.

Many different personalities tests are available to test and identify
different personalities. Among these personality tests are the Big 5,
Myers-Briggs, and the Color Code system. We choose to focus on the Big 5
since it is highly regarded in business and academic communities.
<http://www.centacs.com/quickstart.htm#Background>

![](smallBig5.jpg "smallBig5.jpg")The Big 5 focuses on five personality
factors which help individuals understand themselves and their
teammates. The following is a very brief summary:

Need for Stability Factor : Refers to the degree to which a person responds to stress.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Extraversion Factor : Refers to the degree to which a person can tolerate sensory stimulation from people and situations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Originality Factor : Refers to the degree to which we are open to new experiences/new ways of doing things.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Accommodation Factor : Refers to the degree to which we defer to others.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Consolidation Factor : Refers to the degree to which we push toward goals at work.

### Take the Big Five Test

Here are a couple websites that offer the Big 5 personality test free of
charge.

<http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/>

## Contributor Personalities

While there are many personalities that inhibit a team\'s performance,
there are others that help the team accomplish goals, tasks, and
objectives. Some personalities contribute to a team culture that
facilitates high performance and accomplishment. Other personalities
simply keep things in check and under control. Having this type of
diversity in a team\'s makeup of personalities can play a vital role in
the team\'s success.

### Types of Constructive Personalities

There are many personality types that are very constructive and which
help in becoming a high-performing team. A few of them are listed here:

Silent Contributor : A person with this personality type is someone who gets the job done without saying much. They silently complete the tasks that are assigned to them, and very rarely create conflict. One must take care to balance this type of team member with someone who is not afraid to speak up, however, so that necessary communications happen for the team to progress.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Devil\'s Advocate : This type of person is someone who likes to challenge ideas and processes. They act as an internal \"check\" on what you are doing and the processes you use. Although this person can generate conflict, oftentimes it is healthy conflict that brings ideas to light or helps to challenge biases.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Facilitator : People who like to keep structure to meetings, organize documentation, and make sure things run smoothly are often referred to as \"facilitators.\" These people facilitate the operation of a team by making sure everything goes according to plan, on schedule, and in order. People with this type of personality help to reduce the probability that chaos will ensue from random team members trying to accomplish their distinct agendas simultaneously. This is a \"control\" member of the team.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Leader : Some people are really good a leading a team to success. This type of person is not afraid to take charge, delegate assignments, enforce accountability, encourage others, and facilitate success. Some are natural born leaders, others simply learn by doing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Follower : A dutiful worker. Some people are really good at following directions and assignments, and they work very hard to get their work done on time. This type of person more suited to this type of role because they know how to work hard and are okay with following instructions. Having the bulk of the work taken care of by the \"followers\" allows the other roles within the team to take care of their functions.

### Some Can, Some Can\'t, Some Won\'t

The truth is that some people are good at team collaboration, some
aren\'t, and others are unwilling.

Some people just seem to have the \"gift\" of working with and leading a
team and ensuring its success. These are hard-working people with a mind
for collaboration and putting the success of the team above their own
ego. This type of person will help others achieve their goals by working
with them to resolve frustrations, remove impediments, and create an
atmosphere of mutual satisfaction. This type of team player encourages
the rest of the team to work collaboratively towards the team goals.

Others may not have collaborative personality traits within them.
Although their intentions might be good, they may not see eye-to-eye
with team members on processes, methods or goals. Oftentimes this type
of person will be confrontational and impatient. Even though they would
like the team to succeed, sometimes their own work ethic or personality
gets in the way. This type of person can learn to work better within a
team if they recognize their impact on others and are willing to make
changes to their style.

Some people simply won\'t work with a team. This type of person thinks
they can get the job done faster, easier or better than the team could,
and therefore simply will not cooperate. This type of person must get
past their own ego if they are to work successfully in a team, and this
type of change must start from within.

## Inhibitor Personalities

No matter where a person works, difficult personalities present problems
and challenges in the workplace. These inhibitor personalities cause a
great deal of stress and are sometimes complex to address. The
temptation is to avoid people with personalities that inhibit logical
workflow as it takes time, skill and effort to deal with them.
Personality conflicts are felt by all managers at all levels, but most
avoid dealing directly with them. A study of 250 senior professionals
conducted in the United Kingdom in 2005 noted that half of those
surveyed encountered difficult people on a daily basis (Berry 2005).
Despite this finding, the study noted that only 15% of managers actually
confronted the inhibiting behavior. 55% tried to help by discussing the
problems and 30% just ignored or put up with the difficult personality.
These findings are largely due to the lack of knowledge about how to
deal with inhibitor personalities and the inability to confront the
stresses involved.

### Types of Difficult Personalities

To better understand the types of personalities that can be disruptive
in the work environment, it is necessary to explain the types of
personalities that inhibit teams in the workplace so that an approach
can be applied to deal with each type. There are four basic categories
of personalities that can be found in the workplace: aggressive,
deceptive, passive and destructive.

Aggressive : People showing these personalities demonstrate hostile and forceful behavior toward others. People exhibiting aggressive behavior charge forward in an attacking and forceful way to display the frustration or anger they feel but cannot resolve. These people need to be heard and have a need to vent while at the same time needing people to listen to them. Aggressive personalities include perfectionists, dictators, hostile-aggressives, attackers, egotists, bullies and criticizers who always say no to any request.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Deceptive : People who engage in deceptive behavior aren't comfortable with direct confrontation and prefer to attack from a distance from behind some kind of protection. People with this type of personality are still vocal and tend to either complain quite a bit without direct attacks or compensate for their frustration and dissatisfaction by being everything from sneaky to over-agreeable. These types of personalities include snipers who attack from a distance and always seem to have hidden agendas; overtly nice people who agree with everything until they are overwhelmed; "brownnosers" who have an unnatural attachment to those in charge as a way to get ahead; those who seem unresponsive to anything; and those who spread rumors to increase their own self esteem.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Passive : People who are meek in the workplace present problems as well. Passive personalities are negative, but portray themselves as victims, always ready to dismiss any solution presented to them. Passive personality types include martyrs, passive-aggressives, moody people, crybabies, self-castigators, worriers, resisters, silent types and those who say "it's not my job".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Destructive : People who exhibit destructive behaviors can be explosive and unpredictable. Failure to understand this personality type can lead to extreme problems in the workplace that can create an unsafe work environment. This type of inhibitor personality includes people who are sociopathic and those who are substance abusers.

#### Aggressive Personalities

The aggressive personality type is forceful in what they want and demand
that their issues be dealt with right away. These aggressive inhibitors
include:

Perfectionists : Every detail must be perfect or the perfectionist becomes negative. They are never satisfied with their own work and are own worst critic. They have unrealistic standards and even work that is praised by other workers as the highest quality work is not acceptable to the perfectionist. They cannot accept any kind of criticism and will focus on anything not perfect, even if that part is a tiny part of the overall work done. A perfectionist manager tends to be a micromanager.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Dictators : A person with this personality will make a great deal of demands on everyone and will try to tell them how to do their jobs. They will walk all over the more passive personality types because they will let the dictator roll over them. Dictators are often angry and hostile and have a strong need to control. For the dictator, it is "my way or the highway".

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Hostile-aggressives : People exhibiting this personality are pushy and demanding, constantly argumentative and can be hostile and abusive. They have a need to stir things up and thrive on the chaos they cause. (Aldrich 2002). These employees don't care whether the reaction they get is positive or negative as they gain positive self-recognition regardless of the outcome.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Attackers : These people demonstrate emotion-based hostility and aggressive that they are unable to control. These attacks are not personal to the person being attacked, the attacker is just looking for someone to vent the frustration and anger for which he or she can't find an outlet. Attackers are genuinely upset and need someone to listen to their pain.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Egotists : These are attackers who have a superior attitude and think they know it all. They charge forward with their disapproval of anything that they as experts feel is not going the way it should. Egotists are arrogant and will disagree with most everything that is said because they like to be right. They always find problems, not opportunities. They often criticize others to make themselves feel better.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Bullies : The bully uses threats and intimidation to undermine others. Bullies attempt to undo another person as part of their plan to retain popularity and power. Bullies have an inflated view of themselves and is threatened by someone who is likeable, well qualified or attractive. (Guy 2001). They will humiliate, destroy, discredit or intimidate another person to make themselves look better.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Criticizers : A criticizer will strike down anything this is new, creative or different. His or her mission is to disagree with anything that is said (Topchik 2006). She will jump on any mistake and disagree with it with negative feedback. A manager who is a criticizer exhibits it by always saying no to all requests.

#### Deceptive Personalities

The person with a deceptive personality type will not directly confront
as in the case of the aggressive type. This personality will instead
work behind the scenes or from a distance to disrupt the workplace or
gain favor. These deceptive inhibitors include:

Snipers : They use pointed jabs, humor and verbal sparing to put others down, usually from a distance and behind the scenes. These people take potshots at others, use sarcasm as a weapon, lurk on conference calls to silently gather information, talk behind other people's backs and go to great lengths to make their behind the scenes efforts untraceable back to them. These people will not discuss their opinions in a public forum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Over-agreeables : These are "yes" people who have a powerful desire to be liked and appreciated. They never say no to anything and are far too uncomfortable to voice an opposing opinion. They are often overwhelmed with too many projects since they never say no to anything and are always positive in approach. These people can be problematic in the workplace when they agree with one person's approach and then also agree with an opposing position from someone else.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Brownnosers : Also known as bootlickers, people with this personality type believe that the shortest way to the top is on the coattails of the boss. They will exhibit a complete devotion and dedication to those in charge and will not ever tell the truth about their tactics or any of the boss' activities. They live in a constant self-reinforcing denial state that is perpetuated by the sense of importance bosses get from them.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Unresponsives : These people are very hard to understand and to draw out because they don't provide enough to work with. They tend to be uncommitted to anything with work as the lowest priority in their lives. They waste time, spent a lot of time on personal matters and try to get by doing as little as possible.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Rumormongers : This is one of the more difficult deceptive personalities in that much of their negativity is spread through ideas and statements that are not true, but are hard to trace back to the source. This person feels a great sense of importance when the rumors this person circulates force strong reactions from others. Rumormongers tend to be very specific about what rumors they spread (examples include spreading rumors around senior managers, job cuts, salaries, competition and dating in the workplace), which maximizes the impact and increases their sense of self worth.

#### Passive Personalities

These are people with meek personalities and are often self-deprecating
to a fault. They tend to be moody and sensitive people who worry
greatly, resist change, complain and need constant encouragement. This
personality type includes the following:

Martyrs : This person is the one who comes in early, stays late, seems to not have a life outside of work and will do anything asked of them. While doing this, they will also complain about workload, other employees, clients, managers and everything else in between. The martyr always feels like her efforts go unappreciated. They usually act defeated and powerless. The martyr's trademark statement is "I have given up everything for this company and nobody cares" (Topchik 2006).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Passive-aggressives : People with this personality style lack assertiveness and feel out of control. To remedy this, they find satisfaction in controlling another person's life (Guy 2001). They are very jealous and resentful and have so little belief in themselves that they can't compete with another person without bringing them down. Anyone that this person feels threatened by is subject to their anger, sabotage, deliberate procrastination and other tricks. They often have good excuses for this type of behavior that clouds manager attempts to correct the issue.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Crybabies : People who behave like children when they don't get their way. They withdraw, cry or go on a tirade. They then act as if they are powerless in the same way martyrs do and usually believe everything that happens to them is bad (Manning 2004).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Self-castigators : This personality shows itself in the form of constant self putdowns. This person finds fault with everything he does, from work performance to salary to appearance to economic status to everything that defines a person's self concept. Even if the person is performing well on the job, he will not see it that way himself. This person always takes the blame when something goes wrong, further enhancing negative feelings about personal self worth.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Worriers : These people walk on eggshells and are very sensitive to any negative comment. They usually complain about being too stressed and are expecting the ceiling to fall down on them at any moment. She is unhappy with the way things are and is constantly pessimistic both at work and outside of it.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Resisters : Any kind of change upsets the resistor no matter how small. This person is only comfortable with the status quo and will resist any attempts to introduce new ideas and reorganizations. If the change is threatening enough, the resisters will try to sabotage it or spread negative rumors about the change.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Silent types : These people keep to themselves and don't express any feelings or thoughts on any subject. They work completely alone and even when placed on a team, will contribute nothing to the team in the form of active participation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

"It's not my job"-ers : These are very negative people who will reject any task that is outside of their perceived job responsibilities no matter how small the task may be. They usually do this as retribution for a slight that someone in the organization has put upon them.

#### Destructive Personalities

These include people who have significant problems outside of work that
impact themselves and others at work. They include:

Sociopaths : These are people who lead double lives. Their work lives and personal lives couldn't be more different. These are the people who portray themselves as supportive and charming, but in reality are cold and ruthless. They act on their impulses without regard for the consequences on others. Managers who do not detect that words do not match actions invite severely destructive consequences (Guy 2001)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Substance Abusers : People with alcohol or drug abuse problems who try to mask their abuse at work. They will sometimes work at a very high level and then drop off dramatically. Absenteeism followed by plausible excuses are part of a repeating pattern that is destructive to the person and to co-workers.

### Addressing Inhibitor Personalities

In dealing with all inhibitor personalities, the core emotional
competency to be developed, first, is self-awareness: recognizing one's
emotions and their effects. This should be common sense; after all, you
must be self-aware of the problem before the problem can be addressed.
For instance, if people are lacking -- social competence - in listening
openly and sending convincing messages then they would be inept at
leading and facilitating others towards a common goal. If they lack
self-confidence - personal competence - then it would be difficult to
establish respect with others. When dealing with the various personality
inhibitors, the first step in addressing the issue it to identify the
root cause of the problem itself.

Adapted from Goleman's framework, we created the "Emotional Competency
Framework" table for leaders on how to address personalities that
prohibit teams from reaching their full potential -- the inhibitor
personalities.

In our table below, we made recommendations on how to address the four
inhibitor personality types: aggressive, deceptive, passive, and
destructive. For example, to address the aggressive personality type we
would encourage the aggressor to develop empathy and social skills;
developing an understanding of others and sensing other's feelings and
perspectives would help them empathize and become less aggressive;
developing collaboration and cooperation skills would help them work
amiably with others towards a shared, clear and elevating without using
aggressive, emotionally charged, tactics.

#### Emotional Competency Framework

  `<big>`{=html}Inhibitor`</big>`{=html}   `<big>`{=html}Emotional competencies to be developed`</big>`{=html}
  ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aggressive
                                           Self-Awareness
  Perfectionists                           \|Develop emotional awareness, recognize that their emotions and their negative effects of being too aggressive
  Dictators                                Self-Regulation
  Hostile-aggressives                      Develop self-control by keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in check
  Attackers                                Develop innovation and encourage the individual to being comfortable with novel ideas, approaches and new information
  Egotists                                 Empathy
  Bullies                                  \|Develop understanding others, sensing other's feelings and perspectives, and taking an active interest in their concerns
  Criticizers                              Social Skills
                                           Develop collaboration and cooperation, working with others toward shared, clear and elevating goals
                                           Develop influence, wielding effective tactics for persuasion
                                           Develop conflict management, negotiating and resolving disagreements
  Deceptive
                                           Self-Awareness
  Snipers                                  Develop emotional awareness, recognize that their emotions and their negative effects of being deceptive
  Over-Agreeables                          Self-Regulation
  Brownnosers                              Develop trustworthiness, maintaining standards of honesty and integrity
  Unresponsives                            Social Skills
  Rumormongers                             Develop building bonds, nurturing instrumental relationships
                                           Develop collaboration and cooperation, working with others toward shared, clear and elevating goals
  Passive
                                           Self-Awareness
  Martyrs                                  Develop emotional awareness, recognize that their emotions and their negative effects of being passive
  Passive-aggressives                      Develop self-confidence, a strong sense of one's self-worth and capabilities
  Crybabies                                Self Regulation
  Self-castigators                         Develop conscientiousness, taking responsibility for personal performance
  Worriers                                 Motivation
  Resisters                                Develop achievement drive, striving to improve or meet a standard of excellence
  Silent Types                             Develop optimism, persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks
  "It's Not My Job"-ers                    Social Skills
                                           Develop influence, wielding effective tactics for persuasion
                                           Develop team capabilities, creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals
  Destructive
                                           Self-Awareness
  Sociopaths                               Develop emotional awareness, recognize that their emotions and their negative effects of being destructive
  Substance abusers                        Develop self-confidence, a strong sense of one's self-worth and capabilities
                                           Self Regulation
                                           Develop self-control, keeping disruptive impulses in check
                                           Develop conscientiousness, taking responsibility for personal actions
                                           Motivation
                                           Develop optimism, persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks

*Goleman's "The Emotional Competence Framework" was adapted to this
framework*

## Personality Profiling Considerations

Personality profiling can be a very useful tool in understanding your
teammate's communication styles, motivations and reward preferences. It
can help you understand better how to relate to people and work with
them. However, psychologists stress that personality type doesn\'t
explain everything about us and that people with the same personality
type often behave differently.
1

Experts also agree that people cannot simply trade one personality type
for another --- that personality types are like left- or
right-handedness --- most people are born preferring one hand.
Similarly, every person is born with a personality type, which means
that people react differently to different stimuli. For example, an
introverted person may find relaxation through focusing on memories,
thoughts or feelings, while an extroverted personality concentrates on
the outer world. No personality type is inherently better than another,
although certain personality types work better together and some are
more suited to certain roles on the team.

**Profiling and Stereotyping**

Although personality profiling is popular, it can prove to be a
stumbling block if not used carefully because personality profiling
makes use of stereotypes, which is often used improperly and limits
one's ability to see things clearly.

Walter Lippmann<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann>, an
influential American writer, journalist and political commentator, once
said "For the most part we do not first see, and then define; we define
first, and then we see."

Lippman's candid statement reminds us about how easy it is to assign
someone to a certain personality type (defining them) without having all
the facts. Stereotypes and personality profiling can make us mentally
lazy. As Samuel Ichiye
Hayakawa<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Hayakawa>, an academic and
former United States Senator from California, explained that the danger
of stereotypes "lies not in their existence, but in the fact that they
become for all people some of the time, and for some people all the
time, substitutes for observation."

**Drawbacks and Cautions**

Personality profiling can be a very useful tool in helping people better
understand themselves and the members of their teams. However, it can be
detrimental if not used with caution. Following are three areas that
could sustain damage: 1.) Oneself; 2.) Other team members; 3.) The
organization as a whole.

**Oneself**

When people determine that they are a certain personality type (i.e.
"I'm a Blue") it gives them a useful set of tools to better understand
themselves. However, it may be limiting as well. They might begin to
think that they are not capable or suited to certain tasks because their
personality profile says they are not. They may use the personality
profile as a crutch which keeps them from growing in new areas or
interacting in meaningful ways with others.

**Others**

In addition, when people immediately use personality profiling to judge
the members of their team, they often make false assumptions that they
understand their team members, when if fact they do not. While it is
true that profiling helps individuals make quick judgments that can be
useful in certain circumstances (i.e. the short-lived team with a
short-term goal), people often do not go beyond those initial judgments
to understand the motivations, work styles and personality temperaments
of the co-workers.

**Organization**

Personality profiling is often used in the workplace as a method for
screening and making decisions on whom to hire. Some HR professionals
embrace the technique, while others do not. Although personality testing
may be useful, companies need to be aware of the risks involved in using
them to predict future employee behavior on the job. They may be
exposing themselves to lawsuits or other legal problems if used
improperly.

## Deep- and surface-level diversity

By focusing on personality diversity, as opposed to demographic
diversity, businesses may begin to study what David A. Harrison terms
\"deep-level diversity\" (Harrison et al, 1998). Deep-level diversity
consists of the attitudes, beliefs, values and commitment to the
organization that different individuals in a group might have. This is
in contrast to the traditional method of expressing diversity through
heterogeneity in categories such as race, gender, or age, or what can
called \"surface-level diversity.\" For example, the current thinking in
deep-level diversity would account for the phenomenon that a male,
Indian, engineer from the Punjab might be arguing alongside a younger
female marketer from the midwest US to support a similar project
approach. While the two are certainly demographically different, they
may hold very similar values about work, economy, and share similar
commitments to the organization. By exploring current information on
deep-level diversity, not just surface-level diversity, organizations
may leverage important performance benefits and avoid costly pitfalls.

It remains unclear if deep-level diversity characteristics can be
discerned from personality profiling assessments. It is unlikely to
match up exactly with the current discussion of personality types. What
studies do show, however, is that the effects of surface-level
differences diminish over time as the group works together and the
importance of the effects from deep-level diversity in the group
increases markedly. According to the study, \"Beyond Relational
Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-level Diversity on
Work Group Cohesion,\" the more work group members \"continue to
interact with one another, dissimilarity in the typically studied
surface level dimensions such as sex and age become less important than
deep level attitudinal dissimilarity in, for instance, job
satisfaction\" (Harrison et al, 1998) The authors state that the reason
for this is that time is required for high-quality informational
interactions among group members, in which they learn about each
other\'s deep-level characteristics, and subsequently develop more
meaningful, richly-functional, relationships. Further, Harrison also
conducted a study that found \"increasing levels of collaboration . . .
can reduce the impact race, gender, or age differences on team
performance\" and that \"as team members continue to work together over
time, personality and value differences surface more clearly\" (2002).

### Recommendations

Harrison\'s research suggests that groups seek deep-level diversity in
knowledge, skills, and abilities but minimize diversity in job-related
beliefs, attitudes, and values. This can lead to what he calls
\"especially effective teams\" (2002). However, he cautions that in
order to be successful, it is important that such groups are rewarded
for collaboration and \"that member\'s individual outcomes depend more
on team performance than their own\" (2002).

According to *FastCompany*, this type of deep-level diversity also
corresponds to a higher ROI, service diversification, and sales growth,
as well as more internal communication and an increase in assets (Davies
2004).

However, two elements of previous surface-level diversity problems seem
to carry over even into contexts of deep-level diversity: first,
increased diversity on both levels is still associated with an increase
in turnover and integration and coordination problems; second, it still
appears that in the supervisor/subordinate relationship, subordinates
with the same gender as their superiors receive higher performance
evaluations (Davies 2004).

## Conclusion

Insights into how personality diversity affects the work group have
increased as the study of personality types, profiles, emotional IQ, and
deep-level attitudes has grown. Instead of thinking of diversity as
simply demographic differences, group managers will need to research,
experiment, and analyze the ways in which all of these aspects not only
affect the group, but how they can be integrated into a cohesive
approach that corresponds to group cohesiveness and successful
performance.

## Professional Resources

The following list includes links to a few consulting firms specializing
in personalities:

<http://www.piworldwide.com>

<http://www.personality-insights.com/>

<http://www.personalitypathways.com/tpn.html>

<http://www.hrobjective.com/>

<http://www.lrandc.com/>

<http://www.caliperonline.com/solutions/hiring.shtml>

## References

Brinkman, Rick, Kirschner, Rick. Dealing with People You Can\'t Stand:
How to Bring Out the Best in People at Their Worst, McGraw-Hill, 2002,
1994.

Butler, Timothy, Waldroop, James. The 12 Bad Habits That Hold Good
People Back, Currency/Doubleday, 2000.

Davies, David-Michel, In the Heterogeneous Zone, Fastcompany blog,
December 2004.

Dillard-Bullock, Avis R. Identifying and influencing difficult people,
The Beam -- Bolling AFB -- dcmilitary.com, 2006.

Freedman, Joshua and Todd Everett. "EQ at the Heart of Performance."
<http://www.eqperformance.com>.

Guy, Sandy. Learn From This \... Living & Working with Difficult
Personalities, Australian Good Taste Magazine, February 2001.

Goleman, Daniel. Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books,
1998.

Harrison, et al. Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of
Surface- and Deep-level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. Academy of
Management Journal, 1998.

Harrison, David A. Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects
of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning.

LaFasto, Frank, Larson, Carl. When Teams Work Best: 6,000 team members
tell what it takes to succeed, Sage Publications, 2001

Langdon, Jerry. A Variety of Personalities in the Workplace, USA Today,
Gannett News Service, 2006.

Manning, Marilyn. Managing Difficult Situations,
<http://www.mmanning.com/documents/2004-02-Diff%20Situations.pdf>, 2004.

Manning, Marilyn. Closing the Communication Gap: Managing Conflicts in
High Tech Environments, <http://www.hodu.com/high-tech.shtml>, 2004.

Steele-Pucci, Cynthia. How to deal with difficult personalities,
<http://www.career-intelligence.com/management/NightmareEmployees.asp>,
2006.

Scott, Gini Graham. A Survival Guide for Working With Humans: Dealing
With Whiners, Back-Stabbers, Know-It-Alls, and Other Difficult People,
Amacom Books

Topchik, Gary S. 11 Workplace Personalities and How to Handle Them,
Managing Workplace Negativity,
<http://love.ivillage.com/fnf/fnfwork/0,,92rh,00.html>, 2006.