How a Common Theory on Communication Shapes Teamwork
The key to understanding the makeup of your team and each member’s unique strength is a common format for identifying and understanding each person’s work habits, strengths and communication preferences.
There are many ways you can classify people through observation to identify what “type” of person they are. One of the most common theories addressing styles of communicating is the theory of DISC. Derived from the early work of William M. Marston, the theory has since been applied to the world of business and used in a number of different ways to better understand, appreciate and adapt to people.
In team building, utilizing the theory of DISC helps team members truly understand why everyone is different, what each individual’s strengths are, and how each person contributes to the team. Remember, communication is more than what someone says. In fact, communication is more about what people do, or how they act. DISC considers all aspects of communication, from the words we use to how body language affects communication. By providing a common language with which to speak about our differences, DISC allows us to recognize other “types” of people, understand them better and leverage their strengths. With DISC, the team can be more cohesive, more productive and more efficient.
DISC also allows us to look at team dynamics in a whole new light, making sure that a well-rounded group provides all the strengths needed for success, and each member is in a role that suits them best. Which person is best to lead? Who should handle the details? What is the best combination for small work groups within the team?
With DISC, it is easy to identify team dynamics to begin strengthening your company’s biggest asset. Even if you have a team of star performers, they are only reaching half of their potential if they don’t work well together. Imagine the possibilities if everyone came together to work effectively as a team.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
The question is kind of like asking which of your vital organs do you need the most? Well, we need all of them. Similarly, no people, no team. Since we have the simple math cleared up, here is a novel, albeit contrarian concept. One of the most important elements in TEAM is I. Yes, there is an I in TEAM. Without strong Individual contributions in specialized areas the team becomes inherently weaker. Strong solo contributors if appreciated for their unique contribution add significantly to their group effort. Case in point. Have you ever been in a brain storming or innovation session with a group of people? What happens? At first all the easy answers and solutions bubble up creating the false impression that everybody is contributing. Even the vertically challenged can pick the low hanging fruit!. At about the time mental exhaustion approaches, the intellectual talent hits the home run and everybody thinks that it was a great team effort! Not so. No real work is getting done yet but we all feel good and are even smug, knowing that we are “doing the team thing”. Finally, a gifted one made a breakthrough. Up until this point, we have experienced what I like to refer to as “coblabberation”. This inanely pointless waste of time so many politically sensitive corporate types feel is valuable in the name of valuing everyones contribution is just plain wasteful. Truth be told, out of a dozen people in an exercise like this 95% of the solutions will come from one or two people. Furthermore, if you asked the participants who would be most likely to have the breakthrough idea or the innovation, everyone in the room would know who it is. Please don’t get the impression I am not an advocate for teams. Teams in their most effective state of being do these things extremely well. They make the parts bigger than the whole, have complete ownership for results, really value diversity of thought and talent, allow their own interest to be subservient to the goal, always welcome the truth, and will support each other unconditionally based on a high level of trust. What do you think?