How Personality Conflicts Cause Friction Points in Teams

Friction points in teams

Tony: [00:00:00] So you’ve got these tensions, you’ve also got internal tensions, so your four aspects fighting for supremacy internally, which do I need to bring forward now in this moment, et cetera. And then two people, obviously interpersonally, then having challenges of working together through the say, through these different aspects.

And then of course there’s how each aspect modulates the other. So especially when you’ve got stability and engagement, the two negative and positive emotion metrics. So how are these impacting or influencing your other three core dimensions? So if you are, strong in connection, for example, so you are more people than task oriented.

Let’s say for simple terms, how does your level of stability or engagement. Or in big five language neuroticism and extroversion. So negative emotion versus positive emotion. How are they modulating your connection, your level of, wanting to be your people [00:01:00] person or being a, a more direct task oriented objective person.

And each one of them will amplify it. High level of extroversion will amplify your connection. So if you are, I imagine high on objectivity and extroversion, you’re gonna be amplifying your point of view to a point where it might become a derailer for you. If you’re not careful, they’re both extremely high.

You’re going to be blunt and defensive, for example. 

Rob: But wouldn’t subjective be more, opinionated than objective? 

Tony: Not in the connection dynamic connection dimension is the team cohesion thing. The objectivity is, I don’t really care about the team, I’m just gonna tell you how it is.

Rob: I meant objectivity about facts and things. 

Tony: And then the assertiveness dimension, which lives in the positive emotion bent of extroversion 

Rob: you an assertive 

Tony: objective. 

Rob: This is complicated to track. Is there a model you built to, to base all this on?

Yeah. 

Tony: Yeah. So what’s the 

Rob: model that look like? 

Tony: So it’s the big five model. Fundamentally the big five model. So the five score dimensions map to the big five dimensions, right? And then each of [00:02:00] those dimensions have broken down into four aspects. There’s others, the classic ones. 

Rob: Okay, so the big five are extroversion. Conscientiousness. 

Tony: Conscientiousness, openness. 

Rob: Openness. Agree. 

Tony: Agreeableness. 

Rob: Yes. 

Tony: And neuroticism. 

Rob: Okay. Neuroticism. And then you’ve broken them down into connection, engagement, stability and responsibility. So responsibility. Isn’t that similar to consciousness?

Tony: Yeah. So they map directly. So stability is reverse neuroticism. So high emotional stability is the equivalent of low neuroticism. 

Rob: Yeah. 

Tony: Connection is agreeableness. So connection being your team cohesion connected to other social people versus task effectively.

Openness is originality in mine. So mine is originality. It’s creativity, imagination, all of those types of things. Intellect, responsibility is conscientiousness. So self-discipline, organization, tho those types of things are the aspects of, 

Rob: yeah, see, I came out really low in that, which I always thought I was conscientious [00:03:00] as in terms of I was trying to do the best, but I’m disorganized.

So that’s 

Tony: brilliant. It’s a great example. So you and I, so I’m low in, in that trait as well. So in the responsibility aspect. And I love the fact that it grates on me that I don’t wanna be. 

Rob: I feel if I do something, say, I’ll do something.

Exactly. I’ll do it. But on the measure of which is an 

Tony: integrity thing, right? That’s on the respect side. That’s one aspect of it. 

All these things are obviously not operating in isolation. They’re all levering each other for space and time.

Rob: There’s another one that comes to mind that isn’t mentioned anywhere. But on that sense of reliable, responsible. So I’m disorganized, but in abstract things, in thinking I’m very orderly and very systematic, and I think quite systematically.

So if I wanna solve a problem, it’s systemic.

Tony: So that’s low in originality rather than, innovation. 

Rob: That’s the creativity spectrum, right? See, I have no creativity physically. My art teacher told me my art was the worst seen in [00:04:00] 30 years of teaching.

My music teacher. The start of high school, and you have to do the recorder. He says, you don’t like performing, do you? He said just sit there and make notes. I said, what on? And he said, anything, just anything. 

Tony: It’s a perfect example for me, right?

So in the, so the creativity aspect of originality, so I’m, my highest trait is originality. So I’m very open, very connect dots disparate things together. Lots of novel solution generation, active imagination, all those things. Some might say A DHD, but this gives it, for me a stronger reference.

If I think about music, I play music, but I play music by ear. I never learned the system of music. I never learned the structure of music. I know I’d be a much better musician if I had the methodical implementation of the structure that goes with the best music.

But I love that I can sit down and listen to a tune and play it. I can just, he put those dots together. But I really struggle with refined processes. And I’ll even resist tradition. I’ll resist social proof. If I think there’s a better way to do [00:05:00] something, which drives me mad, because I’m aware of it, obviously, I moderate it in an environment where that matters.

But, it’s a great example and you, so you and I are on opposite ends of that spectrum, not necessarily extreme or that aspect of originality. We both live in very different. So we would compliment each other in that regard. See 

Rob: I think I am when I say systems, I don’t mean any other ones, anyone else’s systems.

I make the system. I won’t do it routinely. So I love solving a problem. I love seeing where there’s a problem, understanding it. I’ll make order of it and that’s the system, but I won’t follow the system. I’ll never follow systems.

Even my own ones. I have trouble with sticking to routines and things. Yeah. I have no creativity physically. I read a lot, but I’ve never followed, like I was in the coach and I was in therapy. I never followed their schools of thoughts.

Like we were talking about religion. ’cause I just don’t like that. I don’t like the idea of doing things because it’s traditional. But I always look at where’s the, where does this come from? What’s the basis behind it? Yeah. Does [00:06:00] it make sense? 

Tony: Yeah. That’s high knowledge seeking, right?

That’s high knowledge seeking. So you are actually trying to get. To understand something. There’s the depth to that exploration and curiosity and, so I would say you’re high in intellectual curiosity, which is part of the openness, the originality spectrum.

So you might be low on the one aspect, but high on the other, which brings your main score up. 

Rob: University was the only time where I was structurally taught. Other than that, I’ve learned from other people, but what I learn, I apply it everywhere.

I’m looking and trying to understand leadership, but I’m not doing it in the way that everyone else is from. This is a group. How do we get them together?

I’ve done it from how are people work? Yeah. So I feel mine’s original because the problems that I solve come from my way or it feels original. Yeah. 

Tony: Yeah. Obviously because all of these things are playing out within us, they, they are hard to define.

We split ’em apart so we can tell the story, but whether you are achievement striving, aspects of responsibilities [00:07:00] playing out, or your tolerance for ambiguity is playing out. Who actually knows, that’s when you get to know yourself, isn’t it?

You do that duplex version and think what is actually going on here? ’cause there’s all sorts of things. Depending where you are on each of these five, spectra you’ve got loads of questions to ask yourself. It’s a good place to start. 

Rob: Yes. I can’t be low on conscientiousness and originality.

Tony: You can’t not to the degree where it, not for my ego. Yeah, you’ve got this ability, obviously to reinvent yourself, to do deep study, to set up podcasts, the perception from the outside and obviously I only get to see you in the conversations that we have which I enjoy.

But also I get to, to read the things that you post. You can’t do those things successfully, they may be lower than some of your other traits, you might have to work at certain things, but they’re not preventing you from being successful.

They’re part of what’s made you successful. Whether you’ve had to channel them or develop as you’ve grown through life, you’ve built [00:08:00] an internal structure to be able to navigate these things. So I would never look at you and go, can’t follow through, can’t get things done.

You’ve got structure, you’ve got zoom calls, everything’s got a place. You’ve got a methodical way of posting content. All of that smacks of high responsibility. It smacks of organization, even though, you might misplace things that’s more disorderly than disorganized.

The two different things, one is you are obviously getting things in the right place as to make your business function. Maybe it doesn’t play out so well in your bedroom or whether your office is tidy or, I dunno, is your office tidy?

Have you got meticulousness about your environment? At 

Rob: the moment I’ve got papers all over my desk, but it’s, it is generally fairly in order. Obviously you working on paper and then you put paper down on that. But I do need more of a clear desk. I can’t have like piles of paper and stuff.

I find it harder to work with clutter. 

Tony: So are you more future focused or present focused? Would you say future? So that brings your originality score up. So if you’re high in vision, abstract [00:09:00] thinking, scenario planning pattern recognition, like which I think you are stronger, right?

You’re able to craft things into a model or look at a model and pull it apart. 

Rob: I’m only abstract, thinking. I have no interest in practical stuff. Pattern recognition I say is my strength. I don’t need to see very much to, to see a pattern. 

Show me a few people and it may look like they got the same completely different situations, but because I’m abstracting to principles. And then I say, okay I see this. Yeah. And then I check for that. Yeah. 

So this model, how did you build it?

Tony: When I went into business, so just before Covid on my own, I’d already experienced different psychometrics and found them to be of some use. I thought I’d explored them a little bit and I thought, okay, at what, if I’m gonna go out on my own, which one am I gonna use?

So I’d been exposed to DISC insights, Thomas International. Myers-Briggs, so quite a few different ones as you’ve gone through life doing bits and bobs. So I started to look into them a little bit more, and [00:10:00] first met a guy who was on Insights and I thought what, which one am I going to use?

Let me see, what tools I could white label. So I just went out and searched for white label psychometric profiling tools and met a guy called Marty Gibbons, really fascinating guy. Great guy. Came out of the Jungian, typology type school. His mother, I believe, was a founder of the Insights Method, which uses a Jungian psychology similar to Myers-Briggs.

It gives you red bluegreen and you know the different energies. They talk about color en energies, red, blue, earth, green. Cool blue, fiery red, sunshine, yellow, right? So they’ve they were very smart at their orientation towards the customers that they wanted to attract using these new languages.

So they created a brilliant marketing tool around Jungian, typologies. So I met this guy. People maps doesn’t label people. So I love the concept of not labeling people short questionnaire. He used ipsitive questions, which is either or pick [00:11:00] between two things like Myers-Briggs basically.

But he took away the types ’cause he found them limiting. So some fundamental things that appeal to me is that we’re all different and now that I’m five years down the track, I’m able to look back into this and go my perception of all these tools is playing out through my own preferences. So my own insights come through my own perception of whether I like or dislike these types of things, right?

So that’s another fascinating things that’s printed in my book. So, here’s how it works. Here’s how your perception of how it works changes depending on where you are in each of these spectrums. I love the complexity and what I’m trying to do is make it obviously as digestible as possible.

So you’ve got two things, right? So I’ve studied all this, studied the Enneagram because I liked as unscientific as it is. It’s decades old. It’s a very spiritually constructed thing. It’s almost biblical in its vices and virtues. You know what I mean? 

Rob: What I love about it is it takes someone’s fear.

I think that’s a powerful insight to know what [00:12:00] someone’s afraid of 

Tony: it is. The only problem with it is, so the more you I looked into it, the more I realized it was really hard to type myself, because I live in multiple boxes. I can look at an Enneagram type seven and go that’s me. And then I can look at a three and go there’s strong elements of me in that. And I can go around the clock and see lots of different, and clearly some that aren’t, but there are lots of and it’s a very complex system, right? You’ve got the wings and you’ve got all of this stuff.

So anyway, I studied it. I never went 

Rob: into that depth, but I could see I’m clearly a five. 

Tony: So very different than me, right? I’m more seven than five. More three than five. But I liked it, right? I liked that it was revealing, confronting things that you could either face down and agree to deal with or ignore, let’s say.

But again, as you’re researching the tool itself, you’re researching what people think of the tool and you get all the discredit and you get people that love it, the evangelists, and you get those that discredit and go, it’s not scientifically valid. So then you go into what’s scientifically valid?

So you go into the big five, right? [00:13:00] Scientifically valid all of that. Jordan Peterson uses it, built a model. I went through his course, I did all of that. And I thought, okay, that’s interesting, but it’s impractical to use it. What do people do with it? It’s so what? Through that process, my original intent, I’m going back now three, four years.

There’s so many of these things was offering disc for behavior, Myers Briggs for cognitive preferences and functions Enneagram for fears, vices, virtues, all of that sort of stuff. Had people maps, which didn’t label people. I had the big five, which was scientifically valid and not some.

You’ve got Keirsey’s five temperaments, you’ve got all these models that I’ve researched. So I thought I’m gonna build a hybrid report. So going back four years I studied psychometrics with the British Psychological Society. So wanted to really get under the skin of it.

What do I do here? Do I choose one of these things to do or do I build my own? Of course, being high in originality, let’s build one of my own. Now I think that’s clearly what was playing out here. My first attempt was to build a hybrid report [00:14:00] because my intent was also, if I think about the ideal customer model or a typical engagement that falls flat. 

The delivery of a disc model goes into a business, runs a workshop with a group of managers, which is highly engaging. Lifts people’s awareness for a high impact short period of time, helps ’em understand a little bit why she’s more dominant than he is. This person’s highly influential and engaging, and this person is analytical and blah, blah, blah.

So you get these yeah that makes sense. And then it gets shoved in a drawer and never sees the light of day again. ’cause they go back to no, there’s no application, there’s no implementation. So they’ve paid a lot of money to an external consultant and left no legacy for the business.

So my vision was to reduce the upfront cost. So make reduce the cost of the engagement in the first place by saying you, you don’t need, you don’t need to do disc Clifton strength finder. You don’t need to do all these things. Let’s just do one thing that does all of it. [00:15:00] Maybe not necessarily to the nth degree, but we capture everything.

How do we do that? And then how do we build that capability in house so that you can serve yourself over time? You don’t need to keep paying for high cost external consultants. Cutting off my nose, spite my face ’cause I’m trying to build a high value consultancy, right?

But that was my start point. So I layered these things together. I started building hybrid questionnaires. I looked at ips and normative profiling and standard deviation and dichotomies and all. So I’m in this messy world of trying to come up with a profile. Originally it was called Core Team Pro and it had a disc element, an Enneagram element cognitive preferences element.

It had a bit of everything because of the way that I’d constructed the questionnaire. But to actually build a system that produced an output that was gonna be usable, was really complex. It was really hard, like the back end of it to churn all this information and spit out something that, that could be used.

The more I [00:16:00] did it, the more complex it got, and then I changed my thought process again. Openness is playing out there. ‘ cause, because that’s me. I can easily cut off and move and shift. I can pivot quite easily. I’m comfortable with that. 

Rob: There’s a correlation between openness and conscientiousness, isn’t there? ‘ cause if you are highly orderly, then part of that is you’re closed off to new ideas 

Tony: there. Yeah. But they operate on two separate systems. 

Rob: But I would say there’s gotta be some kind of correlation because someone who’s very orderly, they’re definitely integrated.

Tony: But you can have high responsibility and high originality. You are gonna be a world beater. They’re the two highest predictors of success globally. Conscientiousness is a predictor of success, which is more traditional. Of course, if you’re reliable, if you are conscientious, if you work hard, if you’re diligent, if you’re disciplined, all of those things are gonna be in your favor.

High originality includes intellectual curiosity. That’s your entrepreneurs, that’s your creativity, that’s your innovation. [00:17:00] So all those things naturally, make sense. Then you’ve got your emotional spectrums, which are extroversion, you specs of positive emotion and your neuroticism aspects of negative emotional stability in my language.

So those things have a big impact in how you show up, how you respond to pressure and that was the big factor with the big five for me, was, when you start to think about approach behaviors, your extroversion, your engagement levels for sport became really important, and your response to stress, your stress tolerance, your resilience, your emotional regulation, 

it’s management of energy, it’s enthusiasm. 

Rob: So as in introverts will become overwhelmed by too many people and well drain energy like in the competitive arena. 

Tony: So there’s loads of successful introverts playing team sports, right?

That there has to be just because there’s so many people playing team sports. But they are wired differently than people that just love being in a team environment. So what do you do with that? Is the [00:18:00] question, but it’s also those people that are on all the time and upbeat and bouncing into the room, sociability is one aspect of extroversion.

But high energy is another aspect of it. So you could have a higher energy introvert who doesn’t like necessarily social, but has got the capacity to.

Rob: When I was studying it wasn’t so much high energy as much as it’s introverts have the starting motor and extroverts need people to start them, their brain thinking.

It’s their management of ’cause that’s the brain structural element isn’t it? 

People think it’s about sociability, but it’s not. Whereas introverts can be on their own and they can have lots of thoughts.

Extroverts struggle to get anything done on their own because they need the energy. 

I looked at introversion extroversion. So extroversion is highly correlated with happiness, which may be where you’re getting the positive emotion aspect 

Tony: of extroversion.

So positive emotion and negative emotion live on two paths. Negative emotion lives in the neuroticism spectrum, so propensity for anxiety, propensity for [00:19:00] withdrawal, depression, those types of things live there, which are not necessarily to do with introversion or extroversion, it’s degrees of extroversion.

How extroverted are you? It’s Myers Briggs that, and, but 

Rob: you could be neurotic and extroverted. Of 

Tony: course can. 

Rob: So in being more introverted doesn’t mean they’re on different, they’re on 

Tony: different points. 

Rob: Like my highest one is stability, on the spectrum.

Then the other highest would be introversion. When I was looking in into extroversion, there’s a lot of to do with risky behaviors. So that’s the element that may work in sport is that extroverts tend to need more drink, they need more like rollercoaster type things because they need that external stimulation. It’s typically extrovert teen boys who become criminals.

So there’s a lot of, those aspects of the riskiness of their behavior can lead them to instability. 

Tony: It’s only risky if you’re not high in conscientiousness. If you’re high in conscientiousness and high in engagement, you’re gonna be a highly driven, productive person. 

Rob: Yeah. I guess so when I was [00:20:00] looking though, I was looking directly at, so basically I read it and looked at it and thought the extroversion and happiness isn’t a pure link.

It was certain elements, it was the element of being engaged with people . But there was also an element of extroversion that led to a similar risk profile to psychopaths, sociopaths where they need to create situations and drama. And there was that level, which I was trying to disprove to show that the correlation was a specific branch of extroversion and not being extroverted in itself. 

Tony: Absolutely. So I don’t touch happiness per se. Because without getting into too much detail, if you’ve got somebody that’s highly engaging, highly enthusiastic, highly charismatic, lots of positive emotion, take the lead good energy about them, and the next day they take their life ‘ cause nobody saw it coming, right? That so much. So they’ve got this high level of extroversion 

Rob: and yet going on 

Tony: [00:21:00] underneath 

Rob: is a.

This is one of the points that I was trying to make in my research. Threw away my dissertation, but cheerfulness is a temperament. It’s a genetic, temperamental element. And so whether someone’s cheerful or melancholy has nothing to do with how they’re feeling.

It’s their genetic way of displaying, and this is why you can have that extroverted person who appears more cheerful, and yet they’re depressed and inside their, suffering. Yeah. 

Tony: Here’s a, let me read this to you. This is part of my engagement, section, and it says… think of it as a personal power grid. It determines whether you’re naturally wired for high level of interactions or steady sustainable output. It influences how you recharge, how you connect, and how you drive projects forward when obstacles arise. So when I talk about it’s application to sport.

It’s got relevance here. So it’s why some people leave meetings energized and others need solitude to recover. It’s the reason some thrive in the spotlight or others make the greatest contributions behind [00:22:00] the scenes. So that’s the sort of broad scope thing and it’s got energy level. It is people who are on all the time, high energy.

I’ve worked with a guy who’s sales leader. He was on all the time. It’s like interminable. I’m in the middle, so sometimes I can buy into that. Sometimes just leave me leave me alone, right? Yeah. So then you’ve got assertiveness, which is the capacity to step forward, a preference for, it’s like an action threshold.

You naturally step forward or step back, when somebody needs to set the direction or take the lead. So that’s one aspect that, that assertiveness could be, it can be misconstrued with low connection, which is disagreeableness. That objectivity, that bluntness is not about assertiveness. It’s when you’ve got high assertiveness and low connection that you get somebody that’s really belligerent and dislikable. So you so they’re two different things. Then you’ve got positive emotion, which is like an emotional amplifier. It is. That’s your enthusiasm. Do you naturally broadcast high level of enthusiasm? Or have you got more measured [00:23:00] emotional frequency, yes. 

Rob: So I’m very enthusiastic about stuff, but that that never comes across.

 I’m not effusive. It’s internal. I don’t display it. 

Tony: I have more of that. I naturally have more.

Rob: You are more open, you more openly display. 

Tony: Yeah. You can see that, right? Yeah. 

Rob: Yeah. So just to go back so I’m highly introverted, but also I get energy from abstract discussion. So if we are talking now, I can I’ll come away full of energy. 

Tony: You’re in your sweet spot, right? So you’re energized when you’re in a place that energizes you.

Rob: Yeah. And I suppose it’s because I feel comfortable if I was in a bigger group or if I was in a group like I really struggle. I tried coworking spaces or coffee shop. I can’t think, it’s too much sensory stuff, there can’t be noise and I can’t not listen to it is where I really struggle.

So I need silence. In a small group or like this, or like when we’ve been, when I’ve worked in places and you’re working on something, I can I have limitless [00:24:00] energy. I never get tired. Whereas people go, oh, we need to take a break. But I think the conforming being in a bigger group or if I don’t believe in it.

Tony: Absolutely. And again, all these things are nuances, right? And I’ve limited it to four aspects to keep it, it, as you can see it’s complicated, but it’s also quite simple. Where are you on the spectrum? What does that mean? So you’ve got the broad dimension, which is the map if you like, which is like your score map would be like any typology it gives you a graph and a picture that says, this is where you are, but is in relation to where you’re going is then what does that tells you what your natural tendencies might be at a broad level.

But then when you go into these different aspects, you’ve got your expression of these traits are very different. We talked just a second ago, how amplified we are in the way our output might look to other people, for example is an aspect in play, it’s an expression. 

When we talk about being energized, we think about the sociability aspect of extroversion or engagement in [00:25:00] the score model.

I suppose the classic. Do you get your energy from interaction or do you generate it through reflection and focus concentration? 

Your coworking space is an brilliant example of sociability at play where you cannot reflect or focus properly when you’re distracted in a social space.

Sounds music on in the background. The coffee machine’s firing off, people are talking in the corner. That’s a brilliant example of your preference, doesn’t mean you’re antisocial. And this is where the labels are unhelpful. That’s why I wanna steer away from typing people. The labels are unhelpful, to say Rob just is, and I would never use the term anti-social, but it’s a sociability aspect.

It’s better that people around you have a preference for focus concentration. And guys, if we’re gonna make a racket here, Rob’s working in the corner, let’s maybe go into another room. That makes a huge difference to how we respect you at work and how you think of us.

It’s these guys are fantastic, and I can go with them on the occasional [00:26:00] night out, I can cut loose, but you can grow respect just through one small aspect of all of this internal. 

Rob: It’s the friction of those things. I’m here in a corner trying to do work and they’re just nattering.

That’s the little antagonisms that build up and up. That’s where you have conflicts and relationship breakdown. Because it’s the differences that aren’t respected, which most of the time they aren’t. Even though your model’s gonna give people, something that they can work through, I think the nuances of it are where actually, the more people that you have do it, the more people are gonna hire you to work through that nuance.

Tony: Yeah. Yeah. I think so. So the book will end up with some sort of action plan. It’ll have a communication guide. So even when you’re operating at a high level, you’ll be able to see who everyone is in the room and, start to build things. So internally it should be usable.

But it’s been a labor of love, but a fascinating, process. I’ve got the perception aspect. Obviously none of these things live in isolation. You might be low in [00:27:00] sociability, but like you said, high in stability, which means when there is noise going on, you’re not just gonna blow up and go nuts in an inappropriate way. You probably stay restrained and calm. But all of that stuff is. It’s been really helpful for me to work through and the idea of score, obviously it’s sports related. It’s born out of how could I help a group of people understand themselves better?

And know what levers to pull to create an optimal environment for them to perform under pressure. 

If I can predict that you’re going into a cup semifinal and a quarter of the squad needs some extra support psychologically to manage the pressure, others might need to have the heat dialed down a little bit. There’s the chance for them to push too much to start to tap into or over time to enable the group to function more optimally through recognition and acceptance and understanding of, the connection. 

For a team environment. We’re all in it together. Team cohesion. And of course you’re trying to breed that as a coach, but if you’ve [00:28:00] got a group that are predominantly low in connection, they’re not interested in cohesion, they’re interested in, just tell me what I need to do.

I’ll go and do it. How you feel about it is irrelevant to me. So they might be naturally low in empathy, which is a real thing. Doesn’t mean they’re psychopaths unless they are. But if they’re naturally low in empathy, they don’t care about other people. You’ve gotta help ’em grow a little bit into some strategic empathy in order for the team to function properly.

If you don’t do it, your team’s forever gonna be subject to the whims of the power of the group. The ones whose dominant tendencies prevail, rather than bring it to the surface and help people understand that if you can dial up your some strategic empathy for these periods of time, it you need to be able to show them what the impact of doing that will be on the team’s performance.

Because we can all agree at the start of the season how we’re gonna pursue these objectives. But then these tendencies will [00:29:00] start to come out. And as the pressure ramps up these tendencies will start to get amplified. People start to express themselves in a more animated way through their strongest tendencies.

So what becomes tolerable in one second now becomes intolerable. Suboptimal because it’s gone too far. It just doesn’t work anymore. Your enthusiasm is brilliant when it helps us get some collective energy into the team before we kick off. But sometimes you just might need to tone 

Rob: it down.

These are all just different friction points, aren’t they? They like chip away over time. Something that comes to mind there. Have you ever thought about getting like a set of cards? 

Tony: Definitely. Yeah. There’ll be a, there’ll be a whole deck of that. Yeah.

Rob: Yeah, because that’s the perfect thing, especially if you’ve got as four, four aspects, then those four yeah, there can be like a deck of cards that this is what you need to do in this is what you need to do in this.