Personality Profile Paper

The impact of the personality profiles we took in class affected our group only a little bit since we didn’t have enough time to explore that idea, but looking back at our group before we took the profile test I can see how our personalities both worked well together and not. Our group’s profiles were that Kerry was high C, Zac was a high I, Clay was a mix of everything, and I was a high S. We did learn later on after our project was done that Janine was a High I; I assumed she could have been high D. Having all different personalities did come in handy in group situations and tasks. An example was that Zac did bring a lot of humor that was need during our group activities or during the planning of our project. Kerry did help us with perfecting our group motto and made the group idea to call ourselves JACKZ.

In addition, he was the first person to send his part of the project to me.

Then with me I did comfort an individual in our group after class and tried to make sure that with every decision we made that we all agreed with it. We did have a little bit of every personality in our group, but I honest think that we need a driver to help to be more goal orientated and to make faster decisions. Though there are negative stereotypes for a high D if we had more of those traits like being quick and decisive it would have benefit our group greatly. We could planned things better and kept on time with assignments. We did compensate for that with me and Janine adapting those traits to benefit the group; this did lead me on to think that Janine was a possible high D. In the end, I wish we had more time to play around with our personalities as a group then just the time we had in class which could have been done if we had made more time for the social

dimension.
When handling groups it’s said that you need to have a balance of both the social and task dimension, yet our group had some trouble with that balance. At first our social dimension ,which deals with the group members relationships with each other(2010, Engleburg, pg.20), was weak because there wasn’t anything that we all had in common ;our group was very diverse. However it did grown stronger when we were trying to find out our common trait and even two group members, Kerry and Zac, got closer because they both had the same love for fishing. When we got out of the forming phase, a phase that our group explores both our personal and group goals (2010, Engleburg, pg.29), and continued through the rest of the phases it became much easier to speak to everyone about both the project and each other. Our task dimension, the focus on the goal or job of the group (2010, Engleburg, pg.20), was great in the beginning to with group assigning what parts they will cover in their part of the project, yet even with our planning it did get a bit mess around the final ends of our project. We planned to meet on a day to check everyone’s progress and to get the information for the slides, but a person couldn’t make it. I made the decision to cancel the meeting to a phone conference on another day , but schedules and others being out of town we couldn’t do that. I was texting everyone back and forth to get their information for their parts of the project. We did get everything together in the end, but if spent more time planning this wouldn’t have happened. Our task and social dimension were not in balance in our group at first then did get complex around the end, but we did have it during our final moments and during the middle ground.