Myers-Briggs personality types in enterprise resource planning projects

¶ … MBTI

Project Example & MBTI

The author of this paper will offer a fictional project team scenario and bridge in the Meyers Briggs frame work vis-a-vis teamwork as well as other important facets of what makes a good project team and what makes a bad one. The author of this response is using a fictional example so it can be best tailored to the topics being discussed and so that there is no concern about "dealing dirt" on someone else's struggles.

Project Scenario

The fictional project scenario that shall be used will be a project that shall engage in the analysis and selection of a new enterprise resource planning solution. The author chose such a project because so many of those sort of projects end miserably (either before, during or after implementation) and a lot of the reason for that are people not working together properly and the Meyers Briggs framework certainly looms large on how that all plays out in most cases.

Meyers Briggs

Meyers Briggs, of course, has four major dimensions that each assess the personality makeup of a person. There are two different ways that each dimension can fall. These four sets are introversion/extraversion (I and E), sensing / intuition (S and I), thinking/feeling (T and F) and judgment/perception (J and P). For example, an ESTJ is someone that is an extrovert, senses rather than uses intuition, thinks more than feels and judges rather than rely on perception. Additionally, there are people who have one or more dimensions that outweigh the other 2-3 sections of the framework and thus become dominant. For example, someone is very social and gregarious would be a dominant extrovert (MBF, 2012)

As far as how to parlay that into a project situation, there are no "one size fits all" or cookie-cutter solutions that make or break whether a project works. Indeed, the amount of people across the United States that fall into each framework is fairly disparate and random. There are sixteen different combinations of each Meyers Briggs outcome and not a single one of them exceeds fourteen percent at the top end of the estimated range. The two that do top out at that level are ISTJ and ISFJ (CAPT, 2012).

Even with there not being a uniform "best outcome," there are certainly trends that the author of this paper feels should be considered optimal and best overall for everyone involved. When speaking of people working on a team, introverts are not bad people but extroverts are better in the sense that they are much more inclined to be good at communication and will be much more eager to do so (at least most of the time) than an introvert. Similarly, someone who thinks rather than feels is better in a project environment because planning and choosing the best solutions needs to be based on real and verifiable data rather than. The third of the three more important dimensions is judging rather than perceiving. Judging a situation based on what is known and provable is much better than perceiving what is going on. In short, reacting to facts will always outstrip "going with your gut" (MBF, 2012)

To translate the four dimensions to an optimal project situation, the members of the team should talk to each other a lot and should be comfortable doing so. The roadblocks to that going smoothly are certainly not limited to extroversion vs. introversion, but this dichotomy is certainly a big part of it. Also, sensing should be preferable to intuition but neither is inherently bad. Thinking should absolutely be dominant to feeling (even if that goes against the MB profile for one or more members of the team) and judgments should outstrip perceptions (MBF, 2012).

In regular speak, team members within the ERP selection process should have an open dialog about who to choose and why (or why not), get a "sense" for why the solutions are workable (or why they are not), they should completely "think" through their decisions and their processes (rather than getting caught up in feelings and other matters not mundane to the situation) and they should effectively judge the results rather than relying solely on perceptions that might be wrong (MBF, 2012).

Other Considerations

While personality types and predilections are important, there are other very important and serious implications that should be dealt with and considered. One major factor is the presence of a strong and clear leader. Even if the group is a party of equals, there is someone that needs to be the "decider" and that facilitates the overall process. This is not to say that the person should throw their weight around. Similarly, leaders acting like everyone on the team is lazy and beneath him/her (i.e. MacGregor's Theory X) is also not a good idea (Bogardus, 2009). At the same time, they should not lackadaisical or too casual about the gravity of what is being done. Leaders should cater to what the members want out of the team. Examples can include experience, increases relationships with major stakeholders, an eventual promotion and so forth. Instead of Theory X, managers should lean much more to Expectancy Theory and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (SimplyPsychology, 2012)(URI, 2012)

To translate this to the example, the leader should map out (WELL in advance) what the process will be, how it should be done and the leader should make it clear why things are being done this way and open up dialog to massage or adjust the overall approach so that it truly is a team effort and a team result. For an ERP selection project, the current state of affairs should be honestly and clearly defined, the desired outcomes and returns on investment for an ERP investment should be ascertained and then vendors should be sought out that fulfill all the needed requirements.

On a similar note, the research and evaluation needs to be thorough, completely and brutally honest. Absolutely nothing that does not have to be left to theory and presumption should be. Similarly, the project team would have to verify that any chosen vendor truly has the capability and motivation to offer a viable and complete solution to what is needed and/or what is wrong. Project members need to work together and verify what all needs to be done and then execute it.

The foundation for all of the above comes down to team member selection, and this is most important when speaking of the leader. Some people are inherently disposed to being leaders and others are better off as followers. This is not to say that followers cannot eventually become leaders (or even vice versa) but people's talents and traits need to be assessed for what they are and who is selected needs to be based on that. For example, someone who is not adept at ascertaining needs, specifications, parameters and requirements should not be leading the aforementioned ERP selection process because that would be an integral and necessary part of that process. Also, people that have clearly shown that they do not work well with others should not be a member of a team, a small one in particular. That is not to say that project members cannot leverage the assistance and input of people (coworkers or outside folks) that are exterior of the team, but the actual project team people need to be good at what they do.

Another key component is that people be fully engaged in the team and what it is doing. Members of an ERP selection project team are likely doing so in addition to other duties but those other duties should not be occurring at the expense of what is going on with the ERP selection process. If the prospective team member is not willing (or able) to provide what is needed for the team, then perhaps that person should not be selected because the team members need to be actively engaged at all times so as to ensure the best possible results.

Author's Team Strategy

This section serves to tie together all of the statements above. The author of this paper, were that person to be leading the project, would assemble a full recitation of what exactly is preferred, desired, and non-optional for any new and different vendor providing an ERP solution. A full recitation of what the status quo is in terms of business processes, performance and so forth would be assembled and summarized extensively so as to provide a clear baseline to compare the ensuing results to if/when they come. The author would then seek out vendors that seem to be potential fits. The author would compare the specifications and offerings to what is needed by the firm and the author would also get references from existing customers that can vouch for whether or not the ERP solution truly delivers on what it says it does. In a perfect world, what the ERP salespeople say would match results, but that is often not the case in modern day.

In terms of general practice, the author would keep an extremely open dialog between all team members and face-to-face meetings would be done whenever practical, useful and/or needed. Relying too much on email and other impersonal and incomplete communication mediums would be strictly avoided but email can (and should) be a widely used tool in the process.

Conclusion

To wrap up this report, the author of this paper would offer that both the team member selection process as well as the processes that follow are both extremely important and either one of those being done poorly can (and often will) lead to very bumpy times if not completely failure. The Meyers Briggs framework can and should be part of the consideration when determining team members and how to help them interact well. That said, it is also important to follow the precepts of "trust by verify," do not assume anything (per the old saying), be extremely thorough, take as much time as is reasonably needed and justifiable and executing by the book rather than out of behaviors like protectionism, selfishness, anti-social behavior or anything else of the sort.

As an end to this report, it has to be said that not everyone is fit to lead or follow on a project team. That does not mean the employee is unfit for their job as it currently is nor does not mean that they can or should change. It just means that people need to be selected and honed based on what they are good at and what they want to achieve.