Back when I was on staff at a church that had a staff, we spent a lot of time considering personality theory and how it related to leadership and chemistry on the team. All staff members were required to take the DISC personality profile. In contrast to some other personality tests, the DISC profile is specifically designed to help you understand how you operate in a team environment. You'll always find people who overemphasize personality type and those who underemphasize it. I personally think that these personality assessments can be an excellent tool to help understand how people operate. Even during my assessment for church planting, we were required to take both the DISC and the Meyers-Briggs. The idea was that it would help you focus on your strengths, and be aware of your weaknesses; the very least benefit you would receive was to discover that you actually did have weaknesses.
One of the challenges of any personality profile, however, is knowing what to own and what not to own. What parts of your personality were going to define you, and which parts were you actively going to work against? Although I am certain that both nature and nurture play a role in the development of our personalities as measured by these tests, the fact is that by the time we are self-aware enough to take them they have become inherent. That is, the measured traits are simply part of the way that we operate, whether born or learned. Nevertheless, they only own us if we own them; you don't actually have to treat people like they are illogical-neanderthals-who-wouldn't-know-a-good-idea-unless-someone-like-me-were-there-to-enlighten-them unless we decide to own that portion of our personality. (If you are an INTJ personality type on the Meyers-Briggs, this is one of your potential weaknesses: by the time you come to a decision, you have so thoroughly thought it through, and are so convinced that it is the correct and only option, that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.) You don't have to own those negatives. They don't have to be true of you. You can identify them, and then work against them and realize that it's possible that you aven't thought of everything; it's possible that other people have good ideas, too.
A second challenge is that personality, even though it may be inherent, takes time to properly identify in ourselves. We have more of a handle on who we are at 30 than we did at 20. We may not have much of life figured out, but at very least we have more experience and understanding of how we operated in a variety of situations that, as we compile that data in our own minds, a picture of who we really are begins to emerge. My DISC results when I was 25 were roughly the same as when I took it at 30, but I understood it far better and could see how it reflected who I really was and how I really operated. At 25, I owned it as something to be proud of; other people wished they had my profile. At 30, I had a more balanced perspective, realizing the downfalls as well as the benefits. At 35, I realize how much help I need from people around me if I'm going to do anything of significance. The more I've come to understand how I'm wired, the more I've come to depend on those around me in a healthy way.
Despite it's challenges, I still think that personality theory continues to be a valuable tool in the leaders arsenal. It both helps you how to deal with the people around you, whose personalities are inevitably different from your own, and also allows you to give them grace because you have a grasp on the things that they simply are not capable of doing. In that sense, understanding the personality of your employees is similar to how I had to understand the skill level of my basketball team. I had a certain coaching instinct going into this past basketball season; there was a way I had coached last year and there were certain milestones I wanted to achieve. And then I met my team, and I had to reevaluate my plans. I watched them play, considered their skill, and figured out what they could reasonably accomplish. Once I understood that, it changed the way that I coached them because I now understood what I could expect of them, and just as importantly, what I couldn't expect of them. There were some things that they were simply not capable of doing; it would have been oppressive for me to get on them about those things. The same goes with understanding the personality theory of our teammates or employees. If you want them to think exactly the same way that you think, you will be severely disappointed. If you get on them about it, they will feel oppressed. Knowing how they are wired helps to know the best way to help them achieve your goals for them, and their goals for themselves.
All of this is an introduction to what prompted this post to begin with. This morning I was reflecting on how difficult it can be to lead people who are in their 20's. I've heard numerous business leaders complain about this. There are studies that are done that try to identify different areas where the generations are different. All of that is helpful. But at base, I think, one of the challenges in leading 20-somethings is that oftentimes it's difficult to actually assess their personality.
I was thinking about this in relation to the most simple of personality theories, the Type A and Type B personality theory. How you handle a Type A, and the things you can expect of them, are significantly different than how you might handle a Type B. The problem is that there are a lot of people in their mid-20's who have one personality type, but are masquerading as the other. For example, there are a lot of Type A personality types who still think that sleeping in until 9:00 or later is totally reasonable. On the flip-side, there are Type B's who have embraced adulthood, so that they appear to be more ambitious than their peers, but in reality are simply more mature. It's easy to treat mature 20 year olds like they are Type A's, when they aren't. It's also easy to treat young Type A's like they are Type B's, and never challenge them to get off their duff and make a difference.
Of course, that's what the 20's are about. Figuring out what works for us. The complicating factor for the person trying to lead is that it's extremely easy to expect or demand things from a mature Type B that they are just aren't capable of delivering, or, aren't capable of delivering it the way you expected them to, whether in the time frame you wanted or with the detail you assumed. It's also extremely easy to write off some immature Type A's because you assume they are incapable of the challenge of leadership.
There's only one way that I've discovered to actually deal with this difficulty. Treat everyone that works with you or for you as people. Remember that they are gifted and flawed all at the same time. Remember that they have strengths and they have weaknesses, and you have strengths and you have weaknesses. Remember, especially when dealing with younger people, that they are trying to figure things out. Expect much, give much grace. Realize that almost everything you are pouring into them is an investment in the future. 20-somethings can accomplish a lot; with your help they'll be able to accomplish a lot more when they are in their 30's.
I think back to when I was in my twenties. I was a pain in the butt to everyone I worked for, and probably many people I worked with. I thought I knew everything. It would have been easy for people around me to write me off or pass the buck to the next poor sucker who had to deal with me. Some folks did that, and I don't blame them. Other's didn't, and for them I am grateful. As a result of their influence and willingness to live with the 20-something pain-in-the-butt, I think and hope that their investment has paid off significantly through a 30-something who is still a pain-in-the-butt, but a much more humble and productive one.
I hope I pass on that same balance of expectation and grace to the people around me.
