I Get by With a Little Help From My Friends: Utilizing Personality Profiles To Assemble High-Performing Project Teams for Construction

This article also appeared in The Electrical Contractor Magazine, Volume 61, published by the Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario (ECAO).

For many construction projects, life begins as a series of specifications and drawings solicited for bid or proposal. However, it is not until the project team coalesces and the project begins to pick up steam that a project truly feels alive. The project team’s members may encapsulate a cross-functional snapshot of an organization, as a large-scale project will involve stakeholders from nearly every business unit—and in successful projects, a factor frequently cited as contributory to that success is the “great team.” But, naturally, forward-minded contractors wondered if the effect of a project team could be quantified, measured and forecasted in such a way that it could be leveraged for improvement.

Volumes of research have been published on the declining trends in construction productivity, and indeed nearly every aspect of the means and methods of construction (i.e., scheduling, cost control, change management, etc.) have been thoroughly analyzed. But, perhaps, not enough attention has been paid to the personnel side of the equation. Certainly, some studies have examined team dynamics, but those that have done so utilized surveys or case studies and lacked the quantitative modelling necessary to affirmatively state the ability of personality traits to impact project success.

Given that the industry at large has slim resource availability from academic research, open-market personality assessments have become more commonplace. As of 2023, this was a two-billion-dollar industry in the United States, with continued growth projected—in fact, over 100 million workers are estimated to undergo some degree of personality testing each year. (1)

The Drake P3 assessment is compulsory for all employees at the company studied — and it should be noted that personality profiling is more effective when it is wider spread than when it is conducted on a narrow sample.

A recent research effort at the University of Wisconsin-Madison examined a particular personality profiling method, the Drake P3, as it was used by a major contractor consistently in the ENR top 100. The Drake P3 method measures four basic traits: dominance, extroversion, patience and conformity. (2)   These traits, briefly, are characterized by the following behaviours:

Dominance: “Getting things done,” competitiveness, leadership/taking charge, etc.

Extroversion: People-oriented, outgoing, talkative, persuasive, etc.

Patience: Amicability, friendliness, conflict-averse, passive, etc.

Conformity: Structured, rule-following, a need to be right, precise, careful, etc.

The Drake P3 assessment is compulsory for all employees at the company studied—and it should be noted that personality profiling is more effective when it is wider spread than when it is conducted on a narrow sample. The results of the company’s project managers are presented in the aggregate in Figure 1. In the figure, zero represents the baseline for the population. Negative values represent a tendency to be slightly less expressive of the given trait than an average person, while positive values represent more expression of that trait.

Worth discussing is that this is the aggregate performance of all project managers at a particular company. That company, by happenstance, has a very structured corporate culture that values collaboration and patience, and has many systems in place for project success. In a way, we must not forget that culture shapes people as much as people shape culture in turn. That being said, it should not be misunderstood that all project managers within the subject company are low dominance, high conformance. Not only are outliers present in the figure (as indicated by the circled data points), but the long whiskers of each plot also indicate a range of values.

Personality profiles alone do not tell the entire story. In fact, while a relatively low number of companies perform personality profiling in the construction sector, fewer still correlate profiling data with project success. Doing so is the critical step that companies need to take in order to extract the most value from the personality profiling efforts they undertake.

For many contractors, particularly in hard-bid construction, one of the paramount indicators of project success is realized margin. It is certainly true that project managers and project teams generally keep margins and cost control top of mind while executing the day-to-day operations of a project. CIM—change in margin—is independent of the individual characteristics of the project and more reflective of effort while executing than other performance metrics, and is thus perhaps a better representation of a team’s cohesion and success. CIM is calculated by subtracting the initial (or planned) profit margin from the final profit margin. Using CIM in this analysis allows for more ready comparisons between projects that may be, on the surface, quite different—as all that is examined is the difference between the plan and what the team was able to achieve.

Data was analyzed from a total of 105 projects, with total project values ranging from $1M to $3M (USD). Project duration ranged from less than one to three years for the majority of the projects, and no project lasted longer than six. CIM was computed for all projects and was then analyzed against the personality traits of the respective project teams. The following conclusions were drawn: Higher scores in conformity and patience, and lower scores in dominance among project team members were correlated to a statistically significant degree with higher CIM.

The statement “personality plays a role in team success” likely strikes most readers as common sense. The authors are sure that each reader can recall moments when latent or overt personality traits of members of their project teams have caused an impact or reaction. In this case, consider why higher patience and conformance values correlate with project success.

From the Drake P3 trait characterization, we know that higher-patience individuals tend to be more people-focused, prioritize collaboration and tend to approach problem solving in a positive and optimistic way. On construction project teams, this equates to proactive risk management, collaborative problem solving and a solution focus—which anyone might agree trends toward a more successful project.

Higher conformity, similarly, has a tendency to equate with processes, rules, systems and high degrees of detail orientation. A focus on quality of work is also a trait of high conformity. Again, this is perhaps logical, as all construction projects seek to output high-quality work, and more individuals of this type support that outcome.

What is perhaps less obvious is the correlation between low dominance and higher project outcomes. Many individuals in construction might self-characterize as high dominance, and indeed, many individuals who have risen to senior roles. However, consider what the Drake profile tells us about dominance. Lower-dominance traits include a tendency toward caution, the tendency to seek group input and consensus when decision making, and an even temperament. Whereas high dominance individuals can be intimidating, perceived as aggressive and prioritize quick decision making even when it results in more risk-taking. For a company of the type examined here, strong structural support and systemic decision making align with the low-dominance traits, which explains the increased performance of this trait on the examined projects.

It is important to understand that personality profiles are a useful tool but should be considered within the context of the company as a whole. A company that is more individualistic and agile than the structured and team-driven one examined here might achieve higher CIM with very high-dominance project teams, for example. Prior to applying any outcome of personality profiling to project data, work to understand what culture and methods are already in place at the company, as simply collecting the data will not change that culture. Once a sense of the dynamics already in play is achieved, then decisions can be made about leveraging areas for improvement.

For a company of the type examined here, strong structural support and systemic decision making align with the low-dominance traits, which explains the increased performance of this trait on the examined projects.

It was in 1917 that Cyrus McCormick coined the now oft-cited proverb, “If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together,” a maxim which is as true today as it was then. With declining construction productivity and an aging workforce in need of new hires, it is evidently critical that project teams be correctly selected, given their impact on project success. The formation of a project team is one of the earliest and most critical actions that must be taken at the commencement of a project, and too often is left simply to selecting from the personnel that are available. If companies contemplating or embarking upon a new venture were able to leverage the personality traits of their staff to create teams that meet a holistic set of criteria—whose skills complement each other—it is possible to realize even greater project success.

References:

1 Goldberg, E. (2023, April 22). “The $2 billion question of who you are at work.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/22/business/personality-assessments-work.html

2  Drake P3. (n.d.). Traits. https://drakep3.com/product/traits

About the principal author:

Dr. Awad Hanna is a professor and chair of the Construction Engineering and Management program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Hanna is also a provider of management education and claims consulting through Hanna Consulting Group Inc. www.hannaconsultinginc.com. He can be reached at ashanna@wise.edu.