Is the STAR Method Dead?

The Power of Agreeableness in Today's Uncertain Landscape.

The conventional wisdom of career advice has long revolved around the notion of outshining one's colleagues. The persistent message has been to lean in, vocalise your thoughts, and burn the midnight oil – all aimed at fostering individual triumph.

However, a new trend is unfolding within managerial circles, placing a premium on a distinct attribute: agreeableness.

According to a new study recently published in Collective Intelligence, in times of high uncertainty, the value of agreeableness is unmistakably coming to light, showing itself as an asset. It is something Managers are seeking out more and more.

Randall Peterson, an esteemed professor of organisational behaviour at the London School of Business, and co-author of the study affirms, "People are increasingly embracing cooperation and agreeableness in ways we hadn't seen before the pandemic". And suggested that the tumultuous times highlighted the worth of possessing an equanimous and cooperative demeanour, as opposed to striving to be the focal point in the limelight.

So does the "Star Method" still hold sway? Maybe not....

In the 10-year study, researchers meticulously analysed data encompassing nearly 3,700 individuals distributed across 593 teams, collectively tackling over 5,000 group tasks.

Each participant underwent a comprehensive 242-question personality assessment, which recorded which of the "Big Five" personality traits they might have:

• Neuroticism

• Extraversion

• Openness

• Conscientiousness

• Agreeableness

The study pinpointed neuroticism as a factor that curtails team performance, particularly in situations where there is uncertainty. On the flip side, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness emerged as positive contributors to team performance, even in the face of uncertainty. This conclusion does appear consistent with previous research, Peterson says.

Although, previously, agreeableness had been viewed as mostly irrelevant in task completion. "In the past, having agreeable individuals on a team was either inconsequential or potentially distracting." So this study shifts the narrative by highlighting how agreeableness can indeed bolster team performance.

In retrospect, Peterson suggests that the usefulness of agreeableness might have always existed, albeit often overshadowed. This was partly due to the overarching emphasis on individual accomplishment within workplace dynamics. "While a competitive person might overpower a cooperative one, two cooperative individuals will consistently outshine two competitive people."

The shift towards agreeableness could be attributed to the current challenges within workplaces. Complex issues like returning to the office or creating a new hiring strategy most often than not can't be resolved with one solution. Somebody exerting dominance to show they have come up with the solution can do more harm than good. Peterson reflects, “The world we live in is increasingly reminding us that the star system is not going to work for us anymore.

But a person who shows humility embraces collaboration and excels in meaningful communication is a valuable asset when addressing issues nestled within the nuances of grey.

In short, the shift towards valuing agreeableness reflects a growing recognition that navigating the intricate shades of ambiguity requires a different kind of excellence – one that thrives on cooperation rather than solo brilliance.