Know thyself, know thy camp

#campcrafting 003: The Big Five personality traits and campcrafting

We need to take a moment’s pause and learn how to be with each other again in pairs and groups before we venture further out.      

~Douglas Rushkoff

1. An OCEAN of Personality

What makes a group successful? Science has figured out the answer:

Cohesion is the magic ingredient to group synergy. Groups that have it elevate to new heights and groups that lack it cataclysmically break up or fission out. Cohesion is a central goal in #campcrafting.

Cohesion, in the context of group dynamics, refers to the degree to which group members are attracted to one another and motivated to identify as part of the group.

In this article, we'll explore how the personality makeup of a team drives cohesion. Our primary tool for this exploration is the science of the Big Five personality traits. 

The Big Five, commonly referred to as OCEAN (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism), are personality traits that can help you better understand yourself and your relationships. OUR TRIBAL FUTURE — deep dives into the science and theory behind these traits, so I’ll leave most of the heavy intellectual lifting there, but available are many quick guides to get up to speed.

Simply put, Open people are creative, broadminded, and willing to experiment or to try new things. Conscientious people are thoughtful, have impulse control, and are goal-directed. Extraverted people are excitable, sociable, talkative, assertive and are emotionally expressive. Agreeable people are affectionate, altruistic, kind, and not prone to confrontation. Neurotic people are moody, emotionally unstable, and introspective. While there is an extensive literature on these core psychological dimensions, we are interested in how these traits combine to predict the success of groups, particularly those resembling camps that work together toward a shared goal. With group cohesion in mind, let’s take it one trait at a time:

Openness (“O”) is a bit of a mixed bag. Open people appear more creative. That means they could be great at coming up with ideas and starting projects. But the tradeoff can be in a group’s lack of organization when getting lost in the creative and abstract. Diversity in this trait could be a good thing, as a few individuals could be the wellspring for new ideas, while others step in to execute those ideas deemed worthy to pursue by the group. In sum, having low or high average group openness won’t make or break a group. 

Conscientiousness (“C”) may be the most important personality trait to consider at the group level for two reasons: First, high overall conscientiousness drives success. If there are crazy levels of variability in this trait, with a few loafers, it could lead to conflict. High achievers may become frustrated with the other team members which are more relaxed in the execution of agreed upon plans. It’s the classic “freeloader problem.” Nobody wants to risk their lives going out to hunt and forage only to have people who do not contribute benefit from your personal sweat equity. Contempt and hostility can bubble towards other members ruining their drive to contribute to the success of the camp.

Extraversion (“E”) is often confused as a factor that would seemingly result in high-performing groups. One would think that a group that is talkative, outgoing, enthusiastic, energetic, optimistic, and assertive should garner success. Fascinatingly, this doesn’t seem to stand scientific scrutiny. High group averages nor greater variability in this trait influences team performance. There appears to be a tradeoff in that those extraverted people within teams appear to experience personal success, but this individual success doesn’t translate to the teams themselves. Although a team full of extroverts performs no better than a team full of introverts, teams that have extroverts should leverage their specific talents as special agents to accomplish goals on behalf of the group. Think of extroverts as (continuing with our RPG metaphor) your high-charisma Paladin diplomat to the outside world.

Agreeableness (“A”), crucially, is positively related to superteams. Camps with members high in agreeableness are friendly, tolerant, helpful, altruistic, modest, trusted, straightforward and compete less with each other. Teams that have both high team averages and less disagreeable members are the super cooperator teams. With their open communication, they can have smooth conflict resolution and work easily to target team goals.

Neuroticism (“N”) is important. The more emotionally stable and less neurotic a team, the less energy will need to be routed to ensure the emotional security of its members. Stable camps will be buttressed by the relaxed atmosphere and stability around behaviors that support task completion. But it is important to note that having a few neurotic people in the group need not adversely disrupt team cohesion. There is a powerful link between neuroticism and loyalty. For those groups that provide support to its more neurotic members, loyalty is dispensed in return. Patient communication amongst members can bond a team with variability in this trait. When anxiety or insecurity crops up in a member, if they feel accepted and understood they become loyal compatriots to groups that ‘get them.’

2. Measuring the OCEAN

With the major personality traits explained, we can get to the fun part. Let’s figure out who we are, what it means for how we receive and communicate information with our camp, and how to identify important things to be mindful of when trying to work together as a team. I emphasize mindfulness because this is the true goal of the exercise — to gain a deep appreciation and understanding of the inner workings of ourselves and the people with whom we are dedicated campcrafters. It’s crucial that these scores aren’t to be used against your campmates. These aren’t sharp categories that box people into “types” that are immutable to change. In fact, quite the opposite, as they are there to provide insight of awareness starting points, and these factors do change over the course of a lifetime.¹

First, heed the ancient call of Socrates to “Know Thyself.” Now is the time to take the Big Five survey.²

A little self-awareness can go a long way, and an assessment of your own personality can help situate yourself within the context of a collective. I generated the figure below using raw scores which will enable us to compare our scores to a reference dataset of well over 100,000 people, and to know where our group stands relative to the scientifically published greater world of personalities³ distributed across North America. Once you take the survey, the output will give you “raw” scores and “percentile” scores. Why two scores? The only difference between the two is that the raw score doesn’t adjust for your age or sex (well known correlates of personality).

Let’s break down the figure below. The bottom “X-axis” is the OCEAN personality trait and the left-handed “Y-axis” is the raw scores (1-100). The blue bar extends upwards and stops at average score of the broader, massive dataset which serves us as a reference for our own individual and group scores; whereas the orange vertical bracket signifies the upper and lower bound of the typical scores. Note, typical does not mean “good” or “bad” it’s just greater awareness of where our personality situates itself relative to the wider world. 

In 2021, my raw scores were:

I have marked the figure with my scores, which are signified with my bear totem.

Interpreting this figure is pretty straightforward. I’m average openness; above average (nearly atypically so) in conscientiousness, on the high end but within typical range in extroversion, totally average in agreeableness, and atypically low in neuroticism. That’s great info to have, and helps me better understand myself. But the real purpose of the exercise is to consider myself within my camp. Recall, the big keys to group cohesion are “C” and “A.”

It appears, personality wise, I’m not going to have an issue doing the dishes or getting chores done, in fact I may be more proactive in that regard, and I’m just about as likely as anybody else to avoid conflict and play nice. If it had been the case that in fact I was atypically low on these bounds, these would be potential sticking points that I would need to be especially aware of within a group context and could spend special effort in attempting to be mindful of. If I were truly low in “C” how would I consider adjusting my behavior? Let’s work through some examples.

In group contexts, especially group related tasks, challenges, adventures, or work, I would need to focus on (and consider others perspectives more) when chipping in resources and doing my fair share of work. For example, I’d set rules for myself. Spring cleaning day? I need to be the first person to start cleaning the public spaces and the last to stop. Group purchase? I should get my money in the pot as soon as I can and follow up on it. Is someone on a videoconference? Turn down my loud music.

Most importantly, I would want to avoid the reputation of a freeloader.

Even if I’m less financially off than others in my camp, I might find other ways to contribute time and energy into our projects.  

What about agreeableness? If I were low in “A” then I could set a similar series of rules of which to be mindful. What if I’m in a camp meeting? If someone is talking, I should try my best not to interrupt, and if I’m going to be contrarian, ask myself if I’m doing so just because I can, or because it really is a crucial observation that can help the group. When disagreeing, consider the most tactful approaches. Most importantly, if you make the move to disagree with someone, only do it if you feel it’s really, really important to the success of the group.

Finally, let’s recall the “N” in OCEAN — neuroticism. What if I were high up there and atypically neurotic? This is where mindfulness comes in again. “N” can be a bit of a mixed bag. If my group gets me, then I’ll likely be deeply loyal, but if I’m feeling insecure in my group, it can drain a lot of emotional energy from my campmates. I just need to be mindful that the way I approach my insecurities don’t overburden my team who has to stop what they are doing to emotionally over-attend to me. 

3. If your camp was a person…

Taking this concept to the next level, let’s profile the group as though it were an individual to get a feel for “camp personality.” If my camp was a person, their personality would be measured (as an average of each members score) as such:

Comparatively, I can now regard myself (the bear) relative to my camp (our symbol). In a general way, this gives me insight on how others in my group may perceive my actions and behaviors, and how I may consider how I perceive my group as a whole in turn.

First, it should be noted that at the group level the camp doesn’t need to flag “C,” “A” as worryingly low or “N” as overtly high. Briefly moving over each trait relative to mine, in terms of “O” I’m average whereas my camp is on the high end of the typical. Meaning, the camp as a whole, may be more open to novel experience, trying new things, and taking on or adopting new strategies, and I may need to be on the lookout to tether us to the ground if we get lost in the creative or the abstract. With respect to “C” as a group we’re all above the average, but I’m at the high end so I need to be aware that doing dishes and tidiness up may be more of a sticking point for me than others.

As for “E”, my camp is really extroverted! I’m on the high end, but it may be the case that I’ll need to stay in to recharge more often that the group wants to head out for a night on the town. With the context of “A” I may be prone to being contrarian, relative to a naturally more conflict adverse group, but it’s important to note that if tough issues need to be brought up, I’m more likely to do so. This could be good if we need to deal with something important, but troublesome if I’m always the bearer of bad news. As for “N” we all share a very low score. Again, don’t box any members in based on these scores. Just because a member is introverted doesn’t mean they never want to be invited to go out. Conversely, don’t be offended if you ask and they want to stay in. This tool is all about group mindfulness. 

Finally, the last dimension to consider is how individuals or subgroups can work prosocially by being mindful of these synergistic interactions. We have individual members of my camp plotted on the below figure by their totems: bear, horse, lion, stag, turtle, and wolf:

Let's inspect “C” and “A” as they are the most important factors that predict camp cohesion. We’re lucky in that our camp is characterized by relatively high “C” averages, but horse and wolf may be the least prone among the members to initiate the chipping in process. As for “A” there are some extremely high scores, with wolf being at the top of the typical range, and horse and turtle extreme outliers. This is a nice example where the camp needs to be mindful about groupthink. True, we can rely on horse and turtle for agreeable vibes, but this may be at the cost of not hearing their inner thoughts. With this in mind, it can help our group to be especially mindful to be patient and coax out their internal thoughts when making collective decisions. One final interesting note is that wolf and stag emerge as the social dynamos of the group — which uniquely situates them as point personalities and diplomats engaging with the outside world.

Again, it’s important to reiterate that there are no “good” or “bad” personalities, and this exercise is a functional one directed towards the goal of becoming as valuable a member as possible to help your camp succeed. Even though “C” and “A” are important for #campcrafting, it’s important that there should be no judgements towards individuals that score outside the average ranges. Although there are patterns that could be beneficial to work towards, having individuals in your group outside the typical norm can strengthen the group by way of variability.

Every group will benefit from everyone being aware that being disagreeable or lacking conscientiousness when acting in the context of the group can hurt your camp.

Here context is key! Be your truest self when it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the group, by simply being mindful of your own and others personalities within the context of the group.

Conversely, it is also important that individuals feel free to express these traits as they see fit when outside of a group context. For example, if someone is low in conscientiousness, and has roommates that are high in this trait, they can be strategic with elevating what levels of “C” they have into keeping public spaces tidy and organized and not lapsing on group or public chores. All the while, their rooms can be super low “C” and as messy and disorganized as they like, because it does not affect their roommates in the group context.

Ultimately, these exercises help lay the foundation of understanding of how each person fits into the whole to help the group achieve its goals. Camps that understand each other — with the ‘what makes each person tick’ knowledge — enhance their cohesion dynamics in a way that forms a positive feedback loop. Each member brings special skills and powers to the adventuring party, and if harnessed correctly can magically improve group performance. In fact, there is scientific support for the idea of effective meshing of personalities creating special chemistry. It’s the compatibility of the group that matters, not the elimination of certain traits, and this means that any group with this compatibility, with the potential to be developed over time, can be magical. 

Go ahead and share this article with your campmates. With individual and camp personality profiles in hand, dedicate time to explore each others personalities as individual and as a group. You may be surprised to discover the kind insights to be gained that can help you along your #campcrafting quest.

So now we’ve got a good understanding of ourselves and the psychological makeup and dynamism of our campmates. How then, do we forge a cohesive unit — a group of people that will identify with each other — fight alongside and for each other, and find purpose and meaning in their interactions. That’s the subject of the next article.

References

1. Soldz, Stephen, and George E. Vaillant. "The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal study." Journal of research in personality 33.2 (1999): 208-232.

2. Note: I’m not affiliated with this research team, although I have used their data in my work.

3. Srivastava, Sanjay, et al. "Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?." Journal of personality and social psychology 84.5 (2003): 1041.