MBTI, DISC, Big Five: Why Personality Tests Are Not Enough to Build High-Performing Teams

It is a classic ritual in many workshops.

You answer a series of questions and an assessment reveals your "color" (Red, Blue, Green, Yellow) or your "four letters" (INTJ, ESFP…).

Suddenly, everything seems clear. You think you understand why you clash with a colleague ("they are a Red") or why someone needs so many details ("they are a Blue").

Tools like MBTI and DISC can be useful for self-awareness and communication. The Big Five is a more solid psychological framework than many popular typologies.

But when it comes to building teams, these tools are often misused. Many managers fall into "Tetris staffing": trying to fit people together based on labels.

Here is why personality tests are not enough to form high-performing teams, and what to use instead.

1) The Trap of the "Corporate Horoscope" (When Used for Staffing)

The main risk is turning a preference into a destiny.

Once someone is labeled, everything gets interpreted through that lens:

• If they speak loudly, it is "because they are Red."

• If they disagree, it is "because they are Red."

This creates a powerful confirmation bias. Instead of listening to what the person is saying, you listen to their label.

It also freezes growth. A person who prefers structure can still be highly creative in the right conditions. A person who prefers introversion can still be a strong presenter with training.

A label can help start a conversation.

A label should not decide who works with whom.

2) Personality vs Context: The Fundamental Error

Most assessments capture preferences, not competence, and not behavior under constraints.

The missing variable is the project context.

• On a crisis project, you need fast arbitration, clear decision rights, and conflict management.

• On an exploration project, you need curiosity, debate, and tolerance for ambiguity.

• On a delivery project, you need coordination, rigor, and reliability.

The same person may act very differently depending on stakes, workload, and incentives.

Static recipes like "one Red, two Greens" fail because they ignore what matters most: the work.

3) Cognitive Diversity Beats Personality Variety

High-performing teams are not built by assembling a rainbow of colors.

They are built by creating cognitive diversity and making it workable.

Cognitive diversity is difference in:

• Knowledge: what people know

• Mental models: how they solve problems

• Perspectives: what they have lived through

Two people can share a personality label and still think in completely different ways.

Conversely, two people with opposite temperaments can collaborate exceptionally well if their thinking patterns and skills are complementary, and the operating framework is clear.

4) A Better Model: Match People on Work, Not Labels

Instead of "matching personalities," use a practical, team-first approach.

Step 1: Use assessments as a communication tool, not a selection tool

After the team is formed, use results to write a simple "user manual":

• "I prefer documents 24 hours before a meeting so I can think."

• "I process ideas by speaking; I need a short verbal brainstorm before writing."

This reduces friction without essentializing anyone.

Step 2: Build teams around a shared object of interest

The strongest glue in collaboration is not personality compatibility.

It is a shared object of interest:

• a product goal

• a customer problem

• a craft standard (quality, reliability, design)

People with different temperaments can work extremely well together when they care about the same outcome.

Step 3: Match on constraints, coverage, and learning loops

Team performance often depends on basics that personality tests do not measure:

• Constraints: availability, time zones, meeting windows

• Coverage: do we cover the required skill spectrum?

• Learning: who wants to learn what, from whom?

When these are aligned, collaboration becomes easier.

Step 4: Design "productive disagreement"

Complementarity can create friction. The goal is not to eliminate friction, but to make it useful.

Practical rule: if two profiles are far apart (technical vs commercial, creative vs controlling), start them with a common hook:

• a shared method preference (structure, speed, rigor)

• a shared risk posture

• a shared interest (data, customer, quality)

You are not trying to make friends.

You are creating minimal common ground so divergence becomes productive rather than toxic.

Conclusion

Personality is one variable in a complex equation.

It is visible and interesting, but rarely the best lever for a manager.

Stop staffing teams as if you were mixing personality chemicals in a lab.

Build teams around context, complementary skills, shared goals, and cognitive diversity, then make collaboration work with clear operating rules.

Keep the personality labels for better conversations, not for staffing decisions.