Week 1 - Forming

Week 1 is focused on the formation of the team for this module, co-creative development.

Forming

The initial forming of the team began while we were still studying the 720 module. A member of our cohort approached me and discussed creating a group around 2D game design and narrative. Another member of our cohort had also made an excellent 2D game and was a great pixel artist. We felt this would complement our skills, with mine being development, theirs being mostly narrative design and the third being pixel art.

The remaining two slots were slower to fill, and we found two students from another cohort who would be joining us for this module. One was a strong artist, and the other had previously crowdfunded and published a game. We felt they would be a great addition to the team.

Know Thyself

The week one challenge was to form the team and test out some recommended personality tests. Unfortunately, many users decided to take the same tests. Unfortunately, a subset decided they didn’t want to take the same tests and took different tests, meaning that we could not evaluate their results against other team members.

Most students took a test and then compared it to what they thought they would have scored. So, to avoid bias, I guessed what I would achieve before taking the test. In general, the scores were better than I expected, and the areas that I thought I would score low, I scored higher, and places I thought I would be high, I was lower.

Knowing the team

We opted for a more detailed skills audit on our team members to assign work and discover areas we may be weak as a team. In addition, we opted for a “How much do you want to work on this thing” vs “how good are you at this thing” approach to allow team members to target areas of learning in addition to areas of high skill. Fortunately, as we had selected a well-rounded team, we had plenty of takers for all areas as defined in our 720 module, with a few extras added. In certain areas, such as the pitch, game design and playtesting, all team members are to be involved. Kichuk and Wiesner discuss that an effective team is based around cognative ability, not personality tests.

Exploration of personality results

Three of the five team members had taken the same personality test. All scored very similarly, with everyone having medium to high scores on every Big 5 (‘The Big Five Personality Test’ 2019) except for extroversion. These scores indicate that we are all introverts with medium to high neuroticism. The 4th member who didn’t take the big 5 showed high creativity and low organisational skills.

Examine and Analyse

Upon reflection, I feel my approach to the team forming was too passive and did not take a strong enough hand in choosing team members. I should have spent more time discussing team formation to ensure we had a better balance of personalities. I relied too heavily on the suggestions from teammates and did not investigate myself.

I felt that forming a team around a common goal - a love of 2D games - would be a robust binding power and would draw us together. Teams, defined by Wageman et al. 2012 are a set of individuals with a common purpose.

Looking back on the team forming, it is now clear there were early warning signs, perhaps relating to the fact that all team members had similar personality traits and are not well balanced with different personality types. All team members had high scores for neuroticism and low scores for extroversion. High neuroticism is a primary differentiating variable in team success (Kichuk and Wiesner 1997).

Learnings and Actions

While engaged in the team selection process, I should have taken a significantly more active role in interviewing potential team candidates to ensure a good personality and skills fit. I will develop skills and personality matrix for every applicant to ensure it will be a viable team in future teamwork.

We failed to develop a team charter upon the creation of the team. Looking back at some of the challenges we faced through the first few weeks, I believe that a formal charter would have helped significantly. A team charter will be a critical undertaking in the team forming stage in future teamwork, regardless of confidence around a unified team goal.

References

• BERGEY, Paul and Mark KING. 2014. ‘Team Machine: A Decision Support System for Team Formation’. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 12(2), 109–30.

• KICHUK, Susan L. and Willi H. WIESNER. 1997. ‘The Big Five Personality Factors and Team Performance: Implications for Selecting Successful Product Design Teams’. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14(3), 195–221.

• MORGESON, Frederick P. et al. 2007. ‘Are We Getting Fooled Again? Coming to Terms with Limitations in the Use of Personality Tests for Personnel Selection’. Personnel Psychology 60(4), 1029–49.

• ‘The Big Five Personality Test’. 2019. Truity [online]. Available at: https://www.truity.com/test/big-five-personality-test [accessed 4 Jul 2021].

• WAGEMAN, Ruth, Heidi GARDNER and Mark MORTENSEN. 2012. ‘The Changing Ecology of Teams: New Directions for Teams Research’. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33(3), 301–15.