Before You Coach: What the Research Says About Knowing Your Team's Personalities First

Most leadership development fails in its first five minutes — not because the coaching is bad, but because it starts blind. A leader sits down to develop a team member with a plan built entirely from the outside: the role, the evaluation rubric, the goal sheet. The person being coached — how they take feedback, how they make decisions, what drains them, what they need in a conflict — is discovered by trial and error, at the team's expense. There is a better first step, and it has a growing research base: run a personality diagnostic before the coaching begins. Tools like the Personality Compass give a leader a shared language for how people work. Used with discipline, they turn coaching from guesswork into a targeted conversation.

The Personality Compass, and the Family of Tools It Belongs To

The Personality Compass: A New Way to Understand People, by Diane Turner and Thelma Greco (1998), maps personalities onto four directions — North, South, East, and West. North types lead and decide; South types nurture and connect; East types organize and plan; West types analyze and create. The book belongs to a family of typologies a leader can reach for before development work begins: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), DiSC, the Enneagram, and CliftonStrengths among them. Millions of working adults have taken at least one of these, and their appeal is easy to understand. A good typology compresses a thousand observations into a sentence: 'She is a West — give her the analysis and the independence.' For a busy leader about to coach a teacher, an assistant principal, or a department head, that compression feels like time saved.

What the Research Actually Says

The scientific case for assessing personality before development work rests on three findings. First, personality is real and it predicts. The five-factor model (FFM) — the Big Five dimensions of extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience — has accumulated decades of evidence: Barrick and Mount's landmark meta-analysis found that conscientiousness consistently predicts job performance across essentially every occupational group (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and personality variables show reliable relationships with leadership emergence and effectiveness (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). A leader who pretends personality does not matter is ignoring measurable signal.

Second, coaching itself works — which makes its opening move worth optimizing. A meta-analysis of workplace coaching covering hundreds of studies found significant positive effects across performance, skills, well-being, coping, and goal-directed self-regulation, with effect sizes from g = 0.43 to g = 0.74 (Theeboom, Beersma, & van Vianen, 2014). Coaching is one of the most reliable development investments an organization can make. The question is not whether to coach; it is whether to coach with information or without it.

Third — and this is the caution — the popular typologies vary widely in psychometric strength, and how you use one matters as much as which one you choose. The MBTI's own publisher reports that around half of test-takers receive a different type classification on retest within weeks, a reliability problem researchers have documented for decades and that popular critics like Annie Murphy Paul have made a public case against (Paul, 2004). Type tools sort people into boxes; the underlying research says personality is continuous, not categorical. The evidence-based move is to treat any typology — the Personality Compass included — as a conversation starter and a shared vocabulary, not a scientific verdict, and to lean on validated frameworks like the Big Five when prediction genuinely matters.

The Conditions That Make a Diagnostic Pay Off

Two conditions decide whether pre-coaching assessment helps or harms. The first is psychological safety. Amy Edmondson's research on work teams found that the teams that learn and perform are the ones where members can raise problems, admit mistakes, and be candid without fear (Edmondson, 1999). An assessment conversation is an early test of exactly that: if people feel their 'type' will be used against them — to label them, to limit them, to explain away their exclusion — the diagnostic becomes a trust-destroyer. The second is leader self-awareness. Research on self-awareness in the workplace suggests it is far rarer than leaders believe, and that those who gain it improve decision quality and credibility with their teams (Eurich, 2018). A leader who has not examined their own direction on the compass has no business reading anyone else's.

A Four-Step Pre-Coaching Protocol

1. Choose the tool honestly. If you want a shared vocabulary fast, a typology like the Personality Compass is fine — say openly that it is a lens, not a diagnosis. If you want predictive data for role fit or development planning, use a validated framework grounded in the five-factor model.

2. Go first. Take the assessment yourself and share your results, including what you suspect it gets wrong about you. Nothing buys psychological safety faster than a leader modeling vulnerability with their own data (Edmondson, 1999).

3. Verify against observation. The tool proposes; the evidence decides. Triangulate what the profile suggests with what you have actually seen — meeting behavior, conflict patterns, response to feedback. Where they conflict, trust the observed record and say so; this teaches the team that data is discussed here, not obeyed.

4. Revisit it. Personality is a starting point, not a ceiling. Re-engage the profile at each coaching cycle: what is still true, what has grown, what the current work demands now. A diagnostic used once is a party game; a diagnostic revisited is a development system.

What This Looks Like in Schools and Districts

In my own practice, the principle shows up in every engagement, whether the client is a Fortune 500 team or a school leadership cabinet: diagnose before you develop. Our partnership methodology begins with needs assessment before any implementation — because a coaching plan built without data is a guess, and a guess at the district level is an expensive one. The same logic applies at the person-to-person scale. Before you coach an assistant principal through their first teacher-conference cycle, know whether they will process the feedback out loud (your North) or need a day to think before responding (your West). Before you develop a department of veteran teachers, know who on the team quietly builds the culture (your South) and who quietly keeps it honest (your East). The coaching still has to be skilled, personalized, and sustained — but it starts from understanding, and that is a research-supported advantage, not a nicety.

Actionable Insights

Three moves before your next development cycle:

Pick one diagnostic and adopt it as a team language this semester. Consistency matters more than the specific tool — a shared vocabulary people actually use beats three assessments nobody mentions again.

Pair every profile with a verification conversation. 'Here is what this says about you. Where is it right? Where is it wrong?' The conversation is the intervention; the profile is just the prompt.

Audit your own self-awareness first. Write down what you believe your working style is, then ask two people you lead to describe it back. The gap between those accounts is your development plan's true starting point (Eurich, 2018).

Pro Tip Question

Before your next coaching cycle, will you know your team's working styles better than you know their evaluation scores — or will you be developing the people you never actually met?

References

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Eurich, T. (2018, January 4). What self-awareness really is (and how to measure it). Harvard Business Review.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–770.

Paul, A. M. (2004). The cult of personality: How personality tests are leading us to miseducate our children, mismanage our companies, and misunderstand ourselves. Free Press.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.

Turner, D., & Greco, T. (1998). The personality compass: A new way to understand people. Element/HarperCollins.

Build coaching that starts from understanding: Explore the Mentoring Administrators program.

Get into the Xone with Wright Consulting FIX.