‍

The theory of Symbergetic™ Management prescribes building complementary PAEI teams—teams that collectively perform the functions of Producing (P), Administering (A), Entrepreneuring (E), and Integrating (I).

When composing a permanent team, tools such as the Adizes Leadership Indicators Suite (ALIS) can help ensure that the necessary personalities are staffing the organizational structure where the PAEI personality code matches the PAEI code of the responsibilities.

When a group is assembled to solve a specific problem and will disband afterward, personality testing becomes far less relevant. In such situations, what matters is not the personalities of the people —but the environment in which they operate. If there is no fear of disagreement, if mutual trust and respect are present, if the environment supports learning, complementary roles will emerge naturally. The system will self-correct.

Normal people are PAEI with different degrees of excellence for each role. While they have strengths and weaknesses, they are capable, when called to, to perform to the necessary to the threshold level of performance needed any of the roles, at least for a short time. Thus , which role they perform depends on what the team dynamics needs.

Consider two executives, both with strong entrepreneurial (E) personalities, debating an issue. Typically, the stronger (E) maintains that role, while the other shifts behaviorally to provide the missing (A) function. If administrative discipline is covered but execution (P) is lacking, one of them will step into that role naturally.

The demands of the situation—not personality—determine behavior of that moment. The behavior that a person adapts his personality to, and practices at the time the role that is missing in the interaction .

This phenomenon extends beyond organizations.

When parents excel in certain styles—say, they are strong in (E) and (A) but weak in (P) or (I)—children often assume the missing roles. Not necessarily because of their inherent personality, but because the system requires it. The gap gets filled.

This leads to an important distinction.

We are all PAEI. Strong on some functions, weak on other. But we do not behave consistently across situations.

An individual may act as a Producer in one context and as an Administrator in another. I may behave as a (P) when doing routine tasks, as an (A) when managing an organization in a specific lifecycle stage, as an (E) when working with clients, and as an (I) in family relationships.

So, the question “Who are you?” is less important than it seems. What matters is: How do you behave when it counts? To understand this, we must differentiate between personality, style, and behavior.

Personality is innate. It is influenced by physiological factors and remains relatively stable. It can be developed but not fundamentally changed.

Style is the pattern of behavior over time. It reflects the interaction between personality and role expectations. A person with an entrepreneurial personality assigned to accounting may display an administrative style—but without intrinsic motivation.

Behavior, however, is situational. Under stress, for example, individuals often shift toward the (P) role—focusing on immediate action to resolve tension.

The implication for leadership

When organizations create environments of mutual trust and respect—where disagreement is safe and learning is continuous—styles adapt to compose a complementary team naturally. Roles shift as needed. Missing functions are filled dynamically. But in both cases if there is no climate of mutual trust and respect the team will have too much destructive conflicts. The personalities will not adapt to the necessities of group dynamics and destructive conflict will rule the day.

Effective team work then, is not a function of having complementary personalities composing it. It is a function of how the system allows them to behave. If there is Mutual Trust and Respect, a group of people will emerge as a complementary PAEI team. Without it, even a team composed of complementary personalities will not succeed to work out constructively.

A culture of Mutual Trust and Respect is more important than the specific style of every member of the team.