{"id":5477,"date":"2017-03-16T00:01:57","date_gmt":"2017-03-16T04:01:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/?p=5477"},"modified":"2026-04-21T13:23:56","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T17:23:56","slug":"science-of-teamwork","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/science-of-teamwork\/","title":{"rendered":"The New Science of Teamwork: Is It New or Simply MG RUSH Professional Facilitation At Work?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The lead article in the March-April (2017) Harvard Business Review reads like a promotion for our MG RUSH<\/i>\u00a0Professional Leadership, Facilitation, and Methodology\u00a0<\/em>training. The principal recommendations in Johnson and Christfort\u2019s article, The New Science of Teamwork,<\/em> have been a mainstay in our curriculum for over ten years now. With the research they amassed to support their thesis, our curriculum has become more valid than ever.<\/span><\/h2>\n

The New Science of Teamwork <\/em>Personality Styles<\/h3>\n

First, they substitute the following four styles for similar styles found in Myers-Briggs, DISC, E-Colors, and others:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"The<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Pioneer<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Driver<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Guardian<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Integrator<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    You should read the article to develop a richer understanding of the similarities and differences to other personality typing methods you know about. Our article follows their assumption, conclusions, and recommendations\u2014plus a few they are missing.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Their assumption, a valid one, suggests that most teams fall short of their potential. They even find that dysfunction may cause some teams to regress rather than progress their organization. They suggest fostering \u201cproductive friction\u201d which puts the term \u2018argument<\/a>\u2019 in its proper and positive connotation.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Not surprisingly they find that cognitive diversity<\/a> and a blending of all the styles will yield the highest quality decisions and group outputs. Further, their conclusions primarily suggest to:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Pull opposite types closer together, and<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Seek input from people with non-dominant styles, paying attention to sensitive introverts.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      For more than a decade we have been major promoters of \u201chealthy dissent\u201d. Their specific recommendations echo our own. However, they are missing a few important tips when leveraging personality types in a meeting or workshop environment.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The New Science of Teamwork\u00a0<\/em>Recommendations<\/h3>\n

      For Guardians<\/em> and Integrators<\/em> (the two non-dominant styles) they suggest identical methods found in our curriculum such as (listed in the sequence found in their article):<\/span><\/p>\n