first break volume 29, April 2011 thematic set - Human Factors in E&P

Personality in sub-surface E&P teams

Patrick Corbett,1* Mary Stewart2 and John Mills1

Abstract
A group of technical sub-surface teams undertaking a realistic industry project in an academic environment completed indi-
vidual personality assessments. The resulting personality profile of a team has been used to identify performance issues, and
has been related to team performance and peer review measures. For the teams studied, there appeared to be very similar
average personality profiles and this was reflected in their similar performance. Individuals found the process of undertaking
personality tests instructive. The teams had also undergone team role profiling so it was possible to compare role profiles and
personality traits. Important aspects of collective team behaviour, such as openness to new ideas, conscientiousness, imagi-
nation, and attention to detail require a range of personalities playing their natural team roles, supported in their actions
by the remaining team members. In teams, the conscientious nature of some people who pay attention to detail appears to
count against them when it comes to peer review. A balanced team might be one therefore that has a better understanding
of personality and team roles so that all beneficial traits are nurtured.

Introduction workloads. The authors discussed personality at only one

The subject of the role of personality in E&P sub-surface
teams is one that has traditionally received little attention
in the literature, and yet personality is suggested as an
important component in team behaviour (Corbett, 2009).
In this article, we analyse the personality profiles for a
set of sub-surface teams as they go through a typical oil
and gas sub-surface assignment as part of a Master’s
course programme. We want to see if a typical personality
profile might exist and whether we can see any relationship
between personality profile and team performance. The pro-
ject received ethical approval from Heriot-Watt University
Ethics Committee.
The oil and gas industry places a huge emphasis on
teamwork and its deliverables, but there are no industry
publications on personality analysis through the use of
metric tests such as the AQ and IPIP tests described briefly
below. One frontline use of such tests is in the recruit-
ment of graduates by the major oil companies. Graduate
interviewees are observed in a closed environment during
recruitment to predict how they react to unseen tests under
pressure. This selection method is perhaps not as effective
point in the paper, and did not even outline effective charac-
ter traits. They described a successful worker as one who is
‘flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances and envi-
ronments’. This ability could be produced by any number
of character traits. The complex interactions between team
members are not addressed, and the argument used more
often than not in the general literature is that a good team is
one where the members are good teamworkers!
In reporting on training programmes at the Colorado
School of Mines and Louisiana State University, Graves et
al. (1995) painted a good picture of universities encourag-
ing teamwork and therefore training students in the skills
needed to do so effectively. Teamwork is very much in the
spirit of modern university teaching, and an integral part of
the Masters programmes at Heriot-Watt University.
Team backgrounds
The 26 students on the MSc reservoir evaluation and
management course that took part in this project were
representative of our student body:
n 23% female, 77% male

as predicting long-term project behaviour, where a more n Age range: 22–42 years

relaxed questionnaire could be more valuable if confirmed n English speaking for 1–42 years

by a larger study. The latter is one objective of this work. n Range of nationalities: UK, French, US, Kazakh, Chinese,

Fattahi and Riddle (2001) discussed the importance of Colombian, Mexican, Nigerian, Ghanaian, Indian, Viet-
professional competence and noted that teams do not stop namese, Sudanese, Libyan
often enough to reflect on what they are doing, what it n Range of technical backgrounds

means, and where they are going with the information. This n Range of experience: from new graduates to experienced
lack of reflection is caused, more often than not, by busy professionals

1
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK.
2
School of Life Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK.
*
Corresponding author, E-mail: patrick.corbett@pet.hw.ac.uk

© 2011 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 41

 thematic set - Human Factors in E&P
In summary, the participants were a very diverse set of
individuals and probably representative of a younger team
in the industry as a whole; note that the teams lack any
very senior staff members. The details of the particular oil
field evaluation team project that they tackled have been
described elsewhere (Corbett et al., 2002). The field evalua-
tion project is a typical sub-surface project where the teams
are presented with geoscientific and engineering data from
real field data, the tools to do the job, and clear objectives
– calculate oil-in-place, determine the key uncertainties, and
make a development plan to deal with them. The projects
are real and stressful enough. One student said: ‘During
the project I worked for 52 hours without sleep, and I’ve
never worked that hard (in industry) before or since’.
Without such effort the student risks letting the team down
and failing the MSc course. Clearly these projects do not
have the financial pressures that exist in a normal business
environment, but they are certainly effective in teaching
the need for teamwork and the role of peer assessment in
technical teams.
Teams were selected by the course director with the
specific intention of producing balanced teams. A number
of criteria were considered in designing the teams, including
age, nationality, gender, technical expertise, academic perfor-
mance, and team working characteristics, but did not include
any knowledge of personality. The teams were, therefore,
randomly selected with respect to personality.
The students were each asked to fill in two personality
questionnaires well after the teams were selected and during
their team project work: the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ,
Baron-Cohen et al., 2001) and the International Personality
Item Pool (IPIP, Goldberg, 1999). The individual data were
analyzed on a team basis.
Autism-spectrum quotient (AQ)
The AQ is a self-administered questionnaire comprising 50
items. Typical questions are: ‘I often notice small sounds
42
first break volume 29, April 2011
when others do not’, or ‘I find making up stories easy’. It
consists of five sub-sections of 10 questions each, assessing
social skill, communication, imagination, attention to detail,
and attention switching. The test was administered as a
pen-and-paper task. Participants were asked to answer each
question as quickly as possible by circling their response on
a four-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly
agree). In the current study, following previous work (e.g.,
Stewart and Ota, 2008), the items were scored on an ordinal
(Likert) scale (1–4). This method of scoring retains the degree
of agreement or disagreement with an item, and reliability
and validity may be increased (Muñiz et al., 2005). A total
AQ score was calculated by summing all of the scores for
each of the items, giving a minimum possible score of 50 and
a maximum score of 200.
The total score is out of 200 and gives an indication to
how much an individual will focus on local detail rather than
the big picture. People who score more highly (over 120) are
more likely to hear things as they really are; are more able to
discriminate small differences between, for instance, sounds
and smells; may not always use context to process informa-
tion; and may be more interested in working something out
than working with other people.
The AQ scores give a total score and sub-scale scores.
Low scorers, those who score below 90, are more likely to
be more interested in other people; focus more on the big
picture; are more likely to use other knowledge to work out
what is happening; are less sensitive to change; and may
have higher emotional intelligence. There are two sub-scales
which relate more directly to cognitive functioning (the way
that you process information). These are attention switching
and attention to detail.
Social skills
High scorers may prefer to spend time on their own rather
than in the company of others. Low scorers are more likely
to seek out and enjoy the company of others.
Figure 1 AQ test summarized by team. Note that
the scales are inverted: the higher the rating for
each personality trait, the lower the numerical
score.
www.firstbreak.org © 2011 EAGE
first break volume 29, April 2011
Figure 2 AQ test for individuals by team, showing a higher degree of diversity at the individual level.
Attention switching
High scores may indicate that a person focuses on one aspect
and does not move his or her attention easily from one line to
thinking to another. Low scores may indicate that attention
is easily switched from one idea to another.
Attention to detail
High scores on attention to detail tend to show a very
detailed approach. Individuals may focus on getting eve-
rything absolutely correct and may not look at the bigger
picture. Individuals may notice if there are small differences
in a room, or a layout. A low score may indicate that the
individual is more focused on the bigger picture, but not
necessarily: it may just be that details do not take up as much
attentional focus.
Communication
A high scorer may find it difficult to understand others,
particularly if people do not say exactly what they mean,
for instance if they use sarcasm or irony. In addition, high
scorers are more likely to communicate in a more literal
way. They may find it difficult to pick up on certain tones
and inflections in another person’s speech. Low scorers may
find it very easy to both tell and understand jokes, and are
more comfortable with leaving things unsaid. They may be
less literal in their communication style and find it easy to
communicate with and understand others.
Imagination
High scores might indicate that an individual is quite literal
and finds visualizing abstract ideas or concepts more dif-
ficult. For instance, a high scorer may prefer reading factual
books rather than novels. Low scores might indicate that
someone can easily visualize characters, for instance in a
book or movie.
© 2011 EAGE www.firstbreak.org
thematic set - Human Factors in E&P
International personality item pool (IPIP)
or the five-factor test
The IPIP is a self-administered questionnaire containing 50
questions. Typical questions are, ‘I don’t talk a lot’ or ‘I insult
people.’ Ten items relate to each of the five-factor model
personality factors: openness, conscientiousness, extraver-
sion, agreeableness, neuroticism. Participants were asked to
answer each question as quickly as possible by marking each
item according to how much they believed it described them
on a five point scale (very inaccurate to very accurate).
Openness
People who score high on openness tend to be intellectually
curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They may
be more creative, more likely to hold unconventional beliefs,
and more open to art, emotions, adventure, curiosity, and
variety of experience. People with low scores on openness
tend to be more conventional and have traditional interests.
They tend to prefer things to be straightforward rather than
complex or ambiguous. People who have low scores may be
less appreciative of art and unusual ideas.
Conscientiousness
People who score high on conscientiousness tend to be
self-disciplined and dutiful. They will work late to get a job
completed and tend to be very thorough in their approach.
People who score high will often have a schedule and a plan
of work. People who score low on conscientiousness tend to
be more impulsive, and have a lower need for achievement.
They may not be as exacting in their work, not feel the need
to follow a fixed schedule, and be more likely to ‘wing it’.
Extraversion
People who score high on extraversion tend to be outgoing
and actively seek the company of others. They tend to seek
43
 thematic set - Human Factors in E&P
out stimulation, and tend to have positive emotions. Extra-
verts enjoy being with other people, tend to like to talk, and
engage with the outside world. The other extreme is introver-
sion. People who score low on extraversion are introverts.
They are more likely to enjoy doing things by themselves or
with a smaller group of friends. Introverts are not necessarily
shy: they simply tend to prefer less outside stimulation than
extraverts, and tend to prefer more time alone. Introverts may
be very active but just not as active socially as extraverts.
Agreeableness
People who score high on agreeableness tend to have a
concern for social harmony. They are more likely to com-
promise their own interests and very much value getting on
with others. People who score high on this scale tend to be
cooperative. People who score at low end on this scale tend
to be more tough-minded. They are less concerned with
others’ well-being or feelings and less likely to put themselves
out for others. Social harmony tends not to be a priority.
Neuroticism
People who score high on neuroticism tend to worry more,
and get more anxious. They are more vulnerable to stress and
may be more likely to feel threatened or under pressure. For
instance, they may find coping with minor frustrations to be
very difficult. High scorers may be more self-conscious and feel
more vulnerable. Individuals who score low in neuroticism are
less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to
be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative
feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that
low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings.
Results
The AQ test profiles for each team are shown in Figure 1.
The teams are remarkably similar, indicating that the teams
selected on the basis of various criteria were also unexpect-
edly balanced on personality profile.
44
first break volume 29, April 2011
When individuals are considered (Figure 2), there is
certainly more diversity but the average personality of the
teams is very similar. It is quite common for technical teams
to show close attention to detail. Small differences between
the teams were communicated back to the teams and the
implications for teamworking explained. An arithmetic
average of a personality test score is just a metric and one
that we use to refer to group performance. Average team
performance might be actually quite difficult to quantify.
Here we rely on the judgement of the exam board, and this
is perhaps an area that might be difficult to translate to
industry where there may not be the same metrics resulting
from rigorous examination.
The same analysis was completed for the IPIP test (Fig-
ures 3 and 4). Team 1 scored slightly higher than the other
teams on four of the five personality traits, the exception
being extraversion. With such high scores on both consci-
entiousness and agreeableness, they risked getting bogged
down with individual tasks without enough collective
will-power to overturn this tendency and avoid a common
pitfall of teams. Teams 3 and 4 were jointly judged the ‘best’
teams by the examination board, so perhaps the degree of
extraversion does not correlate with overall performance
because these two teams had the lowest and highest scores
on this trait, respectively. Note that ‘best team performance’
is often a subjective view but in this case ‘best’ is quantified
by the exam process which is designed to be as quantitative
and fair as possible.
We considered how these profiles might be related to ability
to work in teams. The students also graded each other on their
teamworking contribution. For most of the personality traits
there did not appear to be any strong correlation with the peer
review mark. The strongest correlation was with openness.
The students indicated that they found the personality
profile useful in understanding themselves and their role in the
team. The study will be repeated in future years and considera-
tion will be given to using this in a formal part of the course,
Figure 3 IPIP test summarized by team.
www.firstbreak.org © 2011 EAGE
first break volume 29, April 2011 thematic set - Human Factors in E&P

Figure 4 IPIP test for individuals by team, also showing a high degree of diversity at the individual level.

as opposed to this experimental project on four teams. With

IPIP AQ
up to 26 teams to test, monitor, and evaluate, the university
has a rich seam for exploring the link between personality Team 1 0.24 0.26
and team performance. These results are based on a fairly
Team 2 0.20 0.25
small sample and, whilst indicating some interesting trends, it
is planned to build up a more comprehensive analysis of this Team 3 0.27 0.33
aspect of teamworking in the coming years.
Team 4 0.24 0.26
Katzenbach and Smith (1993) suggested there could be
an optimum team size. In our study we have worked with Table 1 Personality diversity measures.

teams of six or seven. It is not possible to test different

team sizes within this MSc course, but a general comparison
between different courses with different sizes of teams could
be useful as the group dynamic is different where there are
larger numbers. In our experience, the larger group is more
autonomous and there is less reporting/communication
between members. The best teams will have this under
control, however. The authors suggest that a team’s skill base
is more important that the components of the personality,
but one could also argue that the cohesion among members
through compatible personality traits would provide a more
solid foundation for effective performance.
The tests applied in our study are just two tests which
have been found to work well by the authors in assessment
of personality of technical teams. However, other and more
diverse tests might be used in the future.
Belbin team role profiles
Belbin (2003) states that personality is one of the controlling
factors in team role behaviour. It has been standard practice
in our teamwork projects to carry out a Belbin analysis
(Corbett et al. 2002; 2009) to identify which team role best
suits the individual. There are eight team roles. The students
complete a questionnaire, much like the personality test
questionnaire, that is then scored in a similar fashion. The
teams are provided with the results and this helps identify
the team leader and roles that the team members play,
including any roles that are ‘naturally’ missing from the
team’s role profiles.
Some interesting correlations were worthy of note:
n The coordinator role is inversely correlated to implementer

and completer-finisher and correlated with attention to

Diversity detail. It is inversely correlated with openness to new ideas.
Some readers might question the reliance on the average as a n Completer-finisher and communication is correlated. Com-

measure of a team’s personality. Diversity is also important.
The AQ and IPIP tests can be used to measure diversity (Table
1). The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/arithmetic
average) of the personality factors was used to give a dimen-
sionless ‘diversity index’. Team 2 had the least diversity and
Team 3 the highest diversity. Team 3 and 4 were judged the
highest performing teams with Team 1 having the lowest team
score. From these data it is difficult to make a conclusion, but
the diversity index might form part of a further study.
munication means taking things literally, and this may be
an aspect of the completer-finisher’s character.
n Teamworker is negatively correlated with attention to
detail and conscientiousness.
n Implementer is strongly correlated with extraversion and
negative correlation with imagination.
The sample is small but some of these correlations appear
logical.

© 2011 EAGE www.firstbreak.org 45

 thematic set - Human Factors in E&P
Correlations between all factors
This project has allowed a collection of age, language, exam
results, preferred team roles, and personality data. We have
looked for correlations between factors to tease out any rel-
evant relationships for further consideration and the most
notable ones are included here.
n Age and English language ability: not surprisingly, a
correlation was noted between age and years speaking
English.
n Age and shaper: the shaper role in teams tends to be cor-
related with age.
n Age and openness: an inverse relationship was noted.
n Peer review mark and conscientiousness: negatively cor-
related. This result was somewhat unexpected.
n The coordinator role is inversely correlated to implementer
and completer-finisher. It is correlated with attention to
detail and inversely correlated with openness to new ideas.
n Communication (literal) and social skills (wishing to be
alone) are strongly correlated. Social skills are weakly
correlated to imagination and negatively correlated with
agreeableness.
n Extraversion and openness are correlated.
or team project considerations, the negative correlation
F scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism & Developmental
between peer review mark and conscientiousness suggests
dutiful work is not always appreciated. The negative correla-
tion between teamworker and attention to detail and consci-
entiousness follows the same line. This finding suggests team
members should be more appreciative of these skills; it does
not suggest that conscientiousness is a negative trait.
Further work
This study is a pilot study but we think we have learned
something and the students found the feedback useful, so
we are intending to extend the study next year to more
than 20 teams, involving 150 individuals. In future, other
tests may also be used, and issues such as ability to manage
information flux (semantic efficiency and semantic entro-
py), conflicting information (semantic pressure), stability
of shared values (semantic temperature), and leadership
can all be considered (Dell’Aversana, 2011). The working
environment is the same for all teams under the present
conditions.
Conclusions
 nderstanding personality traits is useful at an individual
U vard Business Review, 71(2), 111–120. Reprint R0507P, reprinted
level and can give insights to performance at the team level.
n Our student teams, which were carefully selected to bal-
ance sub-surface technical skills, have similar average
personality traits.
n Some correlation (or anti-correlation) was found between
personality and preferred team roles.
n No obvious single link between personality and team
performance was found, suggesting that the interactions
are more complex than this pilot can reveal.
46
first break volume 29, April 2011
n Peers appear to appreciate openness in judging team col-
leagues’ abilities.
n Peers might not always appreciate attention to detail and
conscientiousness.
 hese results are preliminary and this area of research is to
T
be continued with a large sample.
n The students found the feedback on personality useful
and that might be the most important conclusion.
n This study cannot be used to select an effective team, but
it might help people reflect on their own behaviour.
Acknowledgements
We thank the 2009-10 MSc reservoir evaluation and man-
agement class for their willingness to be the guinea pigs in
this psychological experiment, and we acknowledge Jens
Grimsgaard and an anonymous reviewer for their con-
structive criticism.
References
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J. and Clubley,
E. [2001] The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from
Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females,
Disorders, 31, 5–17. [Erratum in J. Autism Dev. Disord. 31, 603].
Belbin, R.M. [2003] Team Roles at Work. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Corbett, P.W.M., Davies, D. and Gardiner, P. [2002] Addressing the
challenges of teamwork and teamwork assessment in multidisci-
plinary education. First Break, 20(5), 302–304.
Corbett, P.W.M. [2009] How improved teamwork and adoption of
a geoengineering culture can improve oil recovery. First Break,
27(12), 43–51.
Dell’Aversana, P. [2011] Creativity and innovation in complex inform-
ative systems: applications in geosciences. First Break, 29(4), this
issue.
Fattahi, B. and Riddle, S.O. [2001] Competency ingredients for the suc-
cessful petroleum professional in the new millennium. SPE 68795.
Goldberg, L.R. [1999] A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor
models. In: Mervielde, I., Deary, I.J., de Fruyt, F. and Ostendorf,
F. (Eds.) Personality Psychology in Europe, 7. Tilburg University
Press, Tilburg, 7–28.
Graves, R.M., Turley, J.A. and Macon, B.A. [1995] Educating for
leadership, management and teamwork. SPE 30656.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. [1993] The discipline of teams. Har-
in The High-Performance Organization, July-August 2005.
Muñiz, J., Garcia-Cueto, E. and Lozano, L.M. [2005] Item format and the
psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 61–69.
Stewart, M.E. and Ota, M. [2008] Lexical effects on speech perception
in individuals with ‘autistic’ traits. Cognition, 109, 157–162.
Received 2 September 2010; accepted 30 January 2011.
doi: 10.3997/1365-2397.2011010
www.firstbreak.org © 2011 EAGE