Team building is a collective term for various types of activities used to enhance social relations and define roles within teams involving collaborative tasks. It is distinct from team training, designed by a combine of business managers and development/OD and an HR Business Partner to improve the efficiency, rather than interpersonal relations. Many team-building exercises aim to address interpersonal problems within the group. Over time, these activities are intended to improve performance in a team-based environment. Team building is one of the foundations of organizational development that can be applied to groups such as sports teams, school classes, military units or flight crews; the formal definition of team-building includes: aligning around goals building effective working relationships reducing team members' role ambiguity finding solutions to team problemsTeam building is one of the most used group-development activities in organizations. A common strategy is to have a "team-building retreat" or "corporate love-in," where team members try to address underlying concerns and build trust by engaging in activities that are not part of what they ordinarily do as a team.
Of all organizational activities, one study found team-development to have the strongest effect for improving organizational performance. A 2008 meta-analysis found that team-development activities, including team building and team training, improve both a team's objective performance and that team's subjective supervisory ratings. Team building can be achieved by targeted personal self-disclosure activities. Team building describe four approaches to team building: This emphasizes the importance of clear objectives and individual and team goals. Team members become involved in action planning to identify ways to define success and failure and achieve goals; this is intended to foster a sense of ownership. By identifying specific outcomes and tests of incremental success, teams can measure their progress. Many organizations negotiate a team charter with the team and This emphasizes improving team members' understanding of their own and others' respective roles and duties; this is intended to reduce ambiguity and foster understanding of the importance of structure by activities aimed at defining and adjusting roles.
It emphasizes the members' interdependence and the value of having each member focus on their own role in the team's success. This emphasizes working together to find solutions; this can have the added benefit of enhancing critical-thinking. This emphasizes increasing teamwork skills such as giving and receiving support and sharing. Teams with fewer interpersonal conflicts function more than others. A facilitator guides the conversations to develop mutual trust and open communication between team members; the effectiveness of team building differs from one organization to another. The most effective efforts occur when team members are interdependent and experienced and when organizational leadership establishes and supports the team. Effective team building incorporates an awareness of team objectives. Teams must work to develop goals and procedures; as a result, team building is associated with increasing task accomplishment, goal meeting, achievement of results within teams. Team building has been scientifically shown to positively affect team effectiveness.
Goal setting and role clarification were shown to have impact on cognitive, affective and performance outcomes. They had the most powerful impact on affective and process outcomes, which implies that team building can help benefit teams experiencing issues with negative affect, such as lack of cohesion or trust, it could improve teams suffering from process issues, such as lack of clarification in roles. Goal setting and role clarification have the greatest impact because they enhance motivation, reduce conflict and help to set individual purposes and motivation. Teams with 10 or more members appear to benefit the most from team building; this is attributed to larger teams having – speaking – a greater reservoir of cognitive resources and capabilities than smaller teams. The term'team building' is used as a dodge when organizations are looking for a'quick fix' to poor communication systems or unclear leadership directives, leading to unproductive teams with no clear vision of how to be successful.
Team work is the best work. Teams are assembled to address specific problems, while the underlying causes are not ignored. Dyer highlighted three challenges for future team builders: Lack of teamwork skills: One of the challenges facing leaders is to find team-oriented employees. Most organizations rely on educational institutions to have inculcated these skills into students. Dyer believed however, that students are encouraged to work individually and succeed without having to collaborate; this works against the kinds of behavior needed for teamwork. Another study found that team training improved cognitive, affective and performance outcomes. Virtual workplaces and across organizational boundaries: according to Dyer, organizations individuals who are not in the same physical space work together. Members are unable to build concrete relationships with other team members. Another study found that face-to-face communication is important in building an effective team environment. Face-to-face contact was key to developing trust.
Formal team building sessions with a facilitator led the members to "agree to the relationship" and define how the teams were work. Informal contact was al
Peter Saville (psychologist)
Peter Francis Saville is a British Chartered Occupational Psychologist specialising in psychometrics and talent management. He co-founded Saville and Holdsworth Ltd in 1977, he was founder and chairman of the Saville Consulting Group from 2006 to 2015 when it was sold to Towers Watson. During his career Saville has written over 100 psychometric tests, he is now Chairman of 10x Psychology, Director of VERCIDA.com and Diversity Jobs. Saville was born in North West London, UK, to a Welsh mother, Winifred Violet Saville, from Rhossili in the Gower Peninsula, an English father, John Edward Saville, from Chiswick in London, he was educated at Newnham Junior School where his school report stated "Ideas prolific" and "shows evidence of creative thought" but is "much too talkative". As a child he showed signs of a problem with working memory; these were attributed to treatment for congenital scoliosis, a curvature of the spine which involved being swung by the neck and sleeping strapped with leather belts.
He entered Danetree Road, Grammar Stream at thirteen. Saville studied for his GCE at North East Surrey College of Technology in Ewell, Surrey, he obtained a Special Subject Honours Degree in Psychology from the University of Leicester in 1969 followed by a Master of Philosophy Degree in 1974 and a Doctor of Philosophy in 1977 from Brunel University. In 1977 he earned his PhD. from research into personality structure examined by Professor Hans Eysenck, on a representative sample of over 2000 British adults, using a sampling methodology proposed by Claus Moser. Factor analysis provided a five variable solution of traits. In 1970 Peter Saville joined the National Foundation for Educational Research, the main publisher of psychometric tests at the time, as an assistant psychologist and adapting a wide range of psychological tests including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and the Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Saville worked on Mary Sheridan's From Birth to Five Years: Children's Developmental Progress by the paediatrician, Mary Sheridan.
He wrote the British Manuals to The Bennett Test of Mechanical Comprehension, The Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests and The Computer Programmer Aptitude Battery and worked on the publication of the first edition of the British Ability Scales. Saville was involved in the acquisition of the tests of The National Institute of Industrial Psychology, first founded by Charles Samuel Myers. In 1974 aged 27 he was promoted to Chief Psychologist in the Test Division, responsible for the standardisation of psychological and educational tests for clinical and industrial use; the standardisation of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire, where over 2,000 respondents were tested in their own homes, was completed in November 1971 and in the report published in early 1972 R. B. Cattell praised the precision and the ideal model achieved by Saville and his associates at the National Foundation for Educational Research. Cattell concluded: “NFER and Peter Saville can be congratulated on a valuable contribution to British Psychology.”
Along with Bill Mabey at the British Market Research Bureau, Saville funded the research by gaining sponsorship from a number of commercial companies. In 1977 Peter Saville and Roger Holdsworth founded Holdsworth Limited, they offered shares to all employees and the company reached a value of £240 million when floated on the London Stock Exchange. In 1978, Saville acquired the UK rights on a portable document reader known as the Evalmatic which he had connected to a desktop computer to calculate the item statistics needed to assemble reliable tests. In 1984, along with Holdsworth, Cramp and Mabey published the Occupational Personality Questionnaires which the British Psychological Society described as "groundbreaking for its time". Developed for use in workplace settings, the original OPQ contained four different versions; the Pentagon model measured five scales and The Psychologist called it "the first commercially available version of the Big Five factors of personality". The Ocagon and Concept versions of the OPQ measured 8, 16 and 30 scales.
In 1998 Saville was listed in the'Top 100 Entrepreneurs' by Enterprise Magazine and in 1999 he was nominated as one of Britain's Top Ten Psychologists. In 2001 he was presented with the British Psychological Society Centenary Award for Distinguished Contributions to Professional Psychology and his photograph appeared in the National Portrait Gallery, his citation read: "Ultimately the standardisation of questionnaires not designed for an occupational arena made him frustrated and in 1977 led him set up his own company, which subsequently became SHL Group plc, with fellow Psychologist Roger Holdsworth. In doing so he established Britain as a centre for Psychometric testing and is responsible for cementing the notion of fair and objective assessment in Human Resource departments across the world; as a skilled psychometrician and visionary leader, Peter Saville has made a significant impact on professional psychology in the UK and beyond. The widespread use of the tests which he developed by many major companies and public bodies is testament to the influence of his remarkable ideas".
Saville left SHL in 2003. In 2004 he founded his second company, Saville Consu
Big Five personality traits
The Big Five personality traits known as the five-factor model and the OCEAN model, is a taxonomy for personality traits. It is based on common language descriptors; when factor analysis is applied to personality survey data, some words used to describe aspects of personality are applied to the same person. For example, someone described as conscientious is more to be described as "always prepared" rather than "messy"; this theory is based therefore on the association between words but not on neuropsychological experiments. This theory uses descriptors of common language and therefore suggests five broad dimensions used to describe the human personality and psyche; the five factors have been defined as openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion and neuroticism, represented by the acronym OCEAN or CANOE. Beneath each proposed global factor, there are a number of correlated and more specific primary factors. For example, extraversion is said to include such related qualities as gregariousness, excitement seeking, warmth and positive emotions.
That these underlying factors can be found is consistent with the lexical hypothesis: personality characteristics that are most important in people's lives will become a part of their language and, that more important personality characteristics are more to be encoded into language as a single word. The five factors are: Openness to experience. Appreciation for art, adventure, unusual ideas and variety of experience. Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for novelty and variety a person has, it is described as the extent to which a person is imaginative or independent and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities over a strict routine. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus, more to engage in risky behaviour or drug taking. Individuals that have high openness tend to lean, in occupation and hobby, towards the arts, being creative and appreciative of the significance of intellectual and artistic pursuits.
Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded; some disagreement remains about how to contextualize the openness factor. Conscientiousness. Tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior. High conscientiousness is perceived as being stubborn and focused. Low conscientiousness is associated with flexibility and spontaneity, but can appear as sloppiness and lack of reliability. Extraversion. Energetic, assertiveness and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, talkativeness. High extraversion is perceived as attention-seeking and domineering. Low extraversion causes a reserved, reflective personality, which can be perceived as aloof or self-absorbed.
Extroverted people may appear more dominant in social settings, as opposed to introverted people in this setting. Agreeableness. Tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others, it is a measure of one's trusting and helpful nature, whether a person is well-tempered or not. High agreeableness is seen as naive or submissive. Low agreeableness personalities are competitive or challenging people, which can be seen as argumentative or untrustworthy. Neuroticism. Tendency to be prone to psychological stress; the tendency to experience unpleasant emotions such as anger, anxiety and vulnerability. Neuroticism refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, "emotional stability". High stability manifests itself as a stable and calm personality, but can be seen as uninspiring and unconcerned. Low stability manifests as the reactive and excitable personality found in dynamic individuals, but can be perceived as unstable or insecure.
Individuals with higher levels of neuroticism tend to have worse psychological well being. People who do not exhibit a clear predisposition to a single factor in each dimension above are considered adaptable and reasonable, yet they can be perceived as unprincipled and calculating. Depending on how much of each trait a person has, it could make someone more susceptible to participating in certain activities. Family life and the way someone was raised will affect these traits. Twin studies and other research have shown that about half of the variation between individuals results from their genetics and half from their environments. Researchers have found conscientiousness, openness to experience, neuroticism to be stable from childhood through adulthood; the Big Five personality traits was the model to comprehend the relationship between personality and academic behaviors. This model was defined by several independent sets of researchers who used factor analysis of verbal descriptors of human behavior.
These researchers began by studying relationships between a large number of verbal descriptors related to personality traits. They reduced the lists of these descriptors by 5–10 fold
Item response theory
In psychometrics, item response theory is a paradigm for the design and scoring of tests and similar instruments measuring abilities, attitudes, or other variables. It is a theory of testing based on the relationship between individuals' performances on a test item and the test takers' levels of performance on an overall measure of the ability that item was designed to measure. Several different statistical models are used to represent both test taker characteristics. Unlike simpler alternatives for creating scales and evaluating questionnaire responses, it does not assume that each item is difficult; this distinguishes IRT from, for instance, Likert scaling, in which "All items are assumed to be replications of each other or in other words items are considered to be parallel instruments". By contrast, item response theory treats the difficulty of each item as information to be incorporated in scaling items, it is based on the application of related mathematical models to testing data. Because it is regarded as superior to classical test theory, it is the preferred method for developing scales in the United States when optimal decisions are demanded, as in so-called high-stakes tests, e.g. the Graduate Record Examination and Graduate Management Admission Test.
The name item response theory is due to the focus of the theory on the item, as opposed to the test-level focus of classical test theory. Thus IRT models the response of each examinee of a given ability to each item in the test; the term item is generic, covering all kinds of informative items. They might be multiple choice questions that have incorrect and correct responses, but are commonly statements on questionnaires that allow respondents to indicate level of agreement, or patient symptoms scored as present/absent, or diagnostic information in complex systems. IRT is based on the idea that the probability of a correct/keyed response to an item is a mathematical function of person and item parameters; the person parameter is construed as dimension. Examples include the strength of an attitude. Parameters on which items are characterized include their difficulty. In the same manner, IRT can be used to measure human behaviour in online social networks; the views expressed by different people can be aggregated to be studied using IRT.
Its use in classifying information as misinformation or true information has been evaluated. The concept of the item response function was around before 1950; the pioneering work of IRT as a theory occurred during the 1960s. Three of the pioneers were the Educational Testing Service psychometrician Frederic M. Lord, the Danish mathematician Georg Rasch, Austrian sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld, who pursued parallel research independently. Key figures who furthered the progress of IRT include David Andrich. IRT did not become used until the late 1970s and 1980s, when practitioners were told the "usefulness" and "advantages" of IRT on the one hand, personal computers gave many researchers access to the computing power necessary for IRT on the other. Among other things, the purpose of IRT is to provide a framework for evaluating how well assessments work, how well individual items on assessments work; the most common application of IRT is in education, where psychometricians use it for developing and designing exams, maintaining banks of items for exams, equating the difficulties of items for successive versions of exams.
IRT models are referred to as latent trait models. The term latent is used to emphasize that discrete item responses are taken to be observable manifestations of hypothesized traits, constructs, or attributes, not directly observed, but which must be inferred from the manifest responses. Latent trait models were developed in the field of sociology, but are identical to IRT models. IRT is claimed as an improvement over classical test theory. For tasks that can be accomplished using CTT, IRT brings greater flexibility and provides more sophisticated information; some applications, such as computerized adaptive testing, are enabled by IRT and cannot reasonably be performed using only classical test theory. Another advantage of IRT over CTT is that the more sophisticated information IRT provides allows a researcher to improve the reliability of an assessment. IRT entails three assumptions: A unidimensional trait denoted by θ; the trait is further assumed to be measurable on a scale set to a standard scale with a mean of 0.0 and a standard deviation of 1.0.
Unidimensionality should be interpreted as homogeneity, a quality that should be defined or empirically demonstrated in relat