Comment pouvez-vous aligner différentes personnalités avec les objectifs organisationnels en utilisant la rétroaction?

It feels like I’ve been commenting on these AI-generated stories for weeks. They all follow the same pattern: probe, dig and test to understand your teammates. Classify them according to the Enneagram or some goofy HR assessment. It’s all nonsense. You don’t need to plumb the depths of your teammates’ psyches’ to create a cohesive team. Doing so can only hurt matters! People naturally work together as a team if conditions are right. That means: 1. The big goal is clear 2. Everybody understands their part in reaching the big goal 3. People have the tools, training and support they need 4. There’s a high level of trust on the team, and communication is good That’s the formula. No tests, assessments, classifications or feedback needed!

Agree that it’s important to know your team members working style. The personality tools are all available but in my experience, regular 1-1 is the best approach to learn more about the personality traits of the team members. Generally when we do such planned personality test or use these tools, sometimes people overthink the questions and the situations and thus such tests won’t help much. I do follow formal , informal talks with my team members and getting a good benefit.

My Aunt used to do this kind of thing for a living using Myer Briggs. But she emphasized communication, knowing if people like the rule or examples etc.. Her boyfriend was also a consultant for this. So she gets audited, and her boyfriend comes over and starts laying out receipts methodically one at a time on the dining room table. Later on in their relationship, she says to him "You're an F! I thought you were an S". He says to her "that day, you needed me to be an S, so I was an S".

I have always had an ambivalent attitude with respect to psychometric tools. The psychometric industry (and it is an industry) goes to great lengths to sell its tools as valid and reliable predictors of behaviour and future success / failure. The extensive research behind credible tools cannot be disputed, but their application in the workplace has always been problematic to me. People tend to get placed in boxes based on the summary results of a psychometric, i.e., all the nuance and subtlety is overlooked. You're simply either ENTJ, INFP, etc., and those limited definitions determine how you are perceived and managed. For me, good managers don't rely on these tools to communicate with and manage their teams effectively.

While it is nice to understand your team members' personalities, it is not really necessary in order to give effective feedback. If you have created a culture of trust and psychological safety, it's much easier for everyone to communicate more effectively, including giving and receiving feedback.

This statement feels a little like a generic AI-generated opinion. I don't think anyone really believes this anymore. Good managers give - and receive - both positive and constructive feedback regularly. There is no scorecard based on how many thumbs up or thumbs down are given. The important thing for the manager is to create an environment where feedback is not scary or demoralizing, but instead is seen as helpful, supportive, and informative. Theoretically, if you are giving someone feedback, you are trying to help them improve - that is a good thing!

Positive, reinforcing feedback lets people know you’re paying attention and gives them confidence. Constructive feedback means you, the manager, missed a step. Think about it. If you interject yourself in the process before someone has a chance to do something wrong, there’s no need for corrective feedback afterwards. Why would you wait until someone messes up to speak to them? Traditional management is obsessed with corrective feedback. However, the need for constructive feedback speaks to a management failing, not an individual contributor failing. We hired this employee, and trained them. Maybe we didn’t train them well enough. Maybe we should have been on the scene when they did whatever they did poorly. That’s on us!

I remember working with an executive development provider some years ago and was struck by his assertion that feedback is neither negative or positive. The notion of 'constructive feedback' did not fly with him. His view was that all feedback is fundamentally critical in nature, i.e., it is just feedback and it is up to the recipient to accept it as valid, or not.

In my experience, tailoring the feedback in a 3:1 ration is a great start when creating personal feedback based on performance, but should also be fine tuned towards what the individual, or team’s, end game goals happen to be. For example, “You did a great job aligning the team, structuring the marketing strategy, and effectively communicated the presentation to the audience. I will say though, we may have spent too much time on the benefits of the product, and not enough time on their concerns. In order to land this sale goal, align future answers to also address the audiences concerns to help eliminate doubt around a new product.” By aligning feedback with positive turnouts, constructive feedback can often be better received.

Hi Liz I agree. I've found tests are useful to give people descriptors and vocabulary to describe themselves and how they might react, or present themselves to others. But all too often I have found that people would "box" people and then comb their behaviour over the test results using it as a filter through which they view everything the teammate, partner, or employee does, , most times discounting any potential value the person adds. This is extremely detrimental as you now have cognitive bias and will always listen to the individual through that filter, most times not really listening to what they are saying, rather, what you want to hear.

Not to say that the respective models and frameworks don't matter. But in real situations, the last thing on a manager's mind would likely be, "Is she melancholic?" or "Shall I tackle this from a dominance POV?". The (realistic) winning formula in my view is understanding the team's dynamic from one-on-one interactions, creating an atmosphere for sharing opinions and a two-way enquiry approach (including the wrong questions, with a view to getting it right) because that's how active learning is birthed and sustained. I find that some teams can be classified into 2 main groups; those who are assertive and those who would rather give their opinions privately. Providing the right fora for both preferences matters.

Embracing diverse personalities and viewpoints is key to achieving organizational success. Through regular feedback, we can create a bridge between individual strengths and company goals. By acknowledging each person's unique contributions and offering guidance tailored to their styles, we foster a unified team that thrives on collaboration. Feedback becomes a compass, guiding us toward a shared destination while respecting the rich tapestry of talents that define our workforce.