John Lewis

The head of the Partner Support Function, who had already had an MBTI Step II feedback session, wanted the team to find their strengths so they could work better as a team. The objective was, to use Tuckman terminology, to go from storming to norming to performing. The team already had MBTI knowledge, and a Step II team training day presented itself as the best option for team development.

Each team member completed a Step II questionnaire and had an individual two-hour feedback session before the training day. To make sure that a connection between personal feedback and group training was made, Alison Cripps – John Lewis Development Facilitator, who delivered the training – asked each person to remember a ‘light bulb moment’ from the feedback and be ready to share it on the training day.

The team also agreed on two applications to explore in the afternoon session: conflict and decision-making.

Step II: new insights 

To provoke a good initial discussion, the group shared Step II profiles, out-of-preferences and personal light bulb moments. One team member, who was passionate about consistency in performance management and was perceived as a Thinking Type, surprised everyone with her Feeling preference. Her insistence on rules was because she wanted things to be fair for everyone. 

Identity and flipside 

Step II data identifies a team’s collective Type – its identity – and its flipside (ie blind spots/development areas). For this team we have: 

• Team identity = ENFP (clearest preferences: pressure-prompted, tender, accepting, accommodating, spontaneous) 
• Team flipside = ISTJ (development areas: critical, tough, concrete, reasonable, experiential, early starting) 

Here, the implications start to emerge for this small team. The team’s P preference, and critical/tough development areas, could explain the lack of closure with decision-making. 

Conflict and decision-making 

Meetings, and individuals’ differing styles, had given rise to some points of tension, so the big outcome from this part of the training was clarity around underlying preferences and facets. One source of tension was a person who was perceived as being challenging, yet Step II revealed this to be a clear questioning preference – curious, rather than challenging. Similarly, understanding the team’s identity and overall E preference meant they could begin to understand why the two introverts might feel pressured and less able to contribute. Making sure that everyone has the opportunity to share became a key development point.

The team had been cautious around making decisions. They had a tendency to talk about a lot of things but not to have any decisive actions – possibly because everyone was new and didn’t really know each other. The Step II decision-making exercise provided a framework where they could ask themselves bold questions: do we need to make a decision collectively or individually? Does this decision really need to go up to head of department?