Case Study 1 -
KS was the manager of a team that was underperforming. She was considered to be knowledgeable about the processes required in the team and knew what needed to be done. On her last performance appraisal she was told that some members of the team were tending to ignore her requests and only did work they thought was important. She was also told that she lacked assertiveness and was not providing sufficient direction for her team. Consequently, KS was sent on an assertiveness course, which she passed. But a week after her return to work it was as if she had never attended the course. She then enrolled on our Personal Development Programme.

Assessment showed KS to be agreeable, sociable and having appropriate
self-confidence, as well as being innovative and being able to ‘think outside of the box’. It was also clear that she was not likely to shy away from making tough decisions when required. It was decided to look at her Personal Constructs – how she views the world. We focussed on her attitudes to work and management. This process revealed that KS tended to associate assertiveness with an autocratic leadership style, although she had been unaware of this. Further in-depth discussion brought to light that she dreaded being seen as autocratic (due to a previous unpleasant experience with an autocratic manager) and it was agreed by KS that she may have been unconsciously over-compensating for this, thereby seeming to lack assertiveness.

Once she was aware of her tendency and association, KS was able to accept that it was possible to adopt a ‘democratic’ leadership style, whilst still providing clear direction and delegating appropriately. This included demonstrating her assertiveness when required. In separate interviews with members of her team it was clear that they wanted direction and decision making, therefore we encouraged KS to brief the team on her style of leadership and how she wanted things done. The outcome was that overall team performance improved and KS was able to focus on her strengths of innovation and initiative.

Case Study 2 -
JT was part of a small team of 7 people whose work called on them to work individually and as a team. Each member of the team was responsible for their own personal development and JT had opted to undertake our Personal Development Programme because, as he put it, ‘…I’m fully trained up, but still want to improve…’

The post-assessment discussion revealed that JT saw himself as a ‘team player’, happy to help others and pass on his knowledge. This supported the findings from the personality tests, which showed him to be personable and sociable, but still capable of working independently. However, other tests indicated that, when under pressure, he may well have a tendency to detach himself from others. This was followed up during an in-depth interview, when JT was asked to think about examples of when he had worked under pressure. He confirmed that when work needed to be done he ‘got on with it’. Further probing revealed that sometimes he did feel that others should just leave him alone, particularly if he was ‘on a deadline’. It was only when JT was asked to consider how he may appear to others at these times that he became aware of the affect he may have on his colleagues and clients; he was shocked that he may appear to be unwilling to help others or that they may think him to be unapproachable. He also realised that he may be putting others under stress at these times.

We emphasised to JT that this was only likely to happen when he was under pressure and that, in the main, he was a good team worker and was considered to be approachable and helpful. It was important that JT worked to recognise his ‘triggers’, those times when he was likely to lapse into this behaviour. He was very willing to discuss this with his colleagues and to seek their assistance to inform him when he was starting to detach. Once he had learned to recognise his triggers, he was able to look at how he could work differently, involving others more, in order to maximise his skills. He was encouraged to focus on his strengths and to use these to enhance the overall performance of himself and the team.


Case Study 3 -
A team leader wanted to improve team relations – ‘increased harmony’ – with a view to improving performance. A team development day was planned consisting of exercises and forums. Prior to this event the team was observed in the working environment, with the emphasis being placed on recording interactions rather than assessing quality of work. Each member of the team was given on-line tests looking at personality as well as motivations, values and beliefs. Possible derailing behaviours were also looked at. Administering the tests before the event meant that face-to-face contact could be maximised. The tests identified different styles of behaviour, thinking, coping strategies and motivations.

During the event the findings from the tests were compared to assessments undertaken in inter-active exercises and the overall findings were discussed with the individuals with the aim of increasing self-awareness for each team member. This was followed by a team discussion of what different behaviours may be apparent within a team. Everyone was encouraged to contribute to the discussion, but individuals were left to decide how much of their own styles they wished to reveal to the team. As the discussion progressed, more people contributed until eventually everyone had revealed something about themselves. The discussion was then facilitated to look at how different styles, strengths and possible derailing behaviours could be integrated to the benefit of the team. Examples of these included:
  • Preferring not to discuss personal aspects at work, not get involved with office politics – tended to be seen as aloof.
  • Pays great attention to technical detail – others were more concerned with aesthetics/final presentation of the product.
  • Motivated by client satisfaction – will tend to spend longer with a client that is experiencing problems – others often felt that she was shirking work.
  • Finds public presentations stressful, including team and client briefings – happy to contribute to group discussion.
  • Not phased by pressure, but struggles with the more technical aspects.
  • Doesn’t like selling/negotiating, but excellent at organising/project management.
  • Dislikes personal criticism, so tends not to offer criticism at all, even if it is constructive.

Awareness of self and others behaviours facilitated acceptance and allowances to be made, breeding understanding of the reasons behind differences rather than resentment. Delegates were encouraged to take this understanding into the workplace to look for ways in which the different strengths could be best utilised and support given to those with a possible need for development.

A follow-up day was arranged 3 months later. This was more of a fun event, but with specially designed exercises looking at how the team were working together in light of the findings on the original day. The team leader reported much improved relationships with the added benefit of improved overall performance.