I was recently approached by a headhunter for a role that included applying psychometric testing to the staff. I turned it down on that point alone!

Dave - I would like to link this comment with your post "Whose finger on the button?" on 12 September, as well as the Springbuck rugby team (knowing that you are a rugby enthusiast!). The common factor is the Gattacaesque notion that a person's profile on some (usually pseudoscientific) measurement could determine their role or position in an organisation.

In the September 2007 edition of the South African Popular Mechanics, the work of a consultant on the "genetic brain profiles" of the South African rugby team is described. It is based on the old left brain right brain myth, which I believe found its origin in Victorian times with the ambidexterity ideal; revived in more modern times by the work of Sperry and Ornstein and the resulting ubiquitous whole-brain half-wittery. The brain profile instruments that I have seen tend to be quite similar to the Myers-Briggs.

I quote from the Popular Mechanics article: "Right brain players may be more suited to decision making positions, whereas positions requiring repetitive techniques may better suite left-brain dominant players." Also, "Players with a left-eye dominance are over sensitive to body language, and if you know that, you can throw them off their game by pulling faces or making gestures."

The mind boggles. One can only wonder about the effect of the All Black haka on these "sensitive" players! The Springbucks haven't been doing too badly at the world cup, so hopefully the coaches and players have been ignoring the brain profile nonsense.

The Springbok's at the last world cup were taken naked into the bush as part of the their preparation based on another potty set of management theories. They lost to the English then as I remember it, whereas this year it was a very satisfying 36-0. More idocy elsewhere: when Clive Woodward did the first session for the most unsuccessful Lions team in history it was all management speak. When Hensen made the innocent comment "I thought we were here to play rugby" he was almost thrown out of the squad, and then ignored thereafter.

Hi Dave,

People not familiar with his stories in/of critical psychology, may find the work of Craig Newnes (and others in his Department of Psychologies Therapies, of the Shopshire NHS Trust)a highly refreshing alternative to the guff that is Myers-Briggs

http://www.shropsych.org/craignewnes.htm

http://www.shropsych.org/criticalpsychology&psychiatry.htm

Best Wishes

Dave

Dave,

Are you familiar with the Enneagram? If yes, what's your position on it?

Aiden - I don't really see much difference between the Enneagram and Myers-Briggs. Both claim underlying and unchanging personality types (context free). The scientific claim for validation on Enneagrams is very weak - one PhD thesis, limited sample validated against similar tests.

You might as well go for astrology. I did that once with a team I ran. We used to run different psychometric tests every six months to create a conversation point. One year I issued a questionnaire in which the only relevant data was place and date of birth. We then got an astrologer to write up each individual and their relationships with others, then a consultant to translate the material into management speak. Everyone thought it was the most accurate test they had ever done ....

Interesting.

What do you mean then by the phrase, "methods based on orientations"? And what methods?

Well lets take one example. Belben (not the modern one with eight/nine or sixteen types, that has gone over to the dark side). Here we have seven orientations that need to exist in a team. They are not types (as in Jung to which MB has a loose link) or the Enneagram. So if I look at my score then I have a primary orientation to Shaper-Plant-Resource_Investigator. My secondary orientation is Complete_Finisher-Monitor_Evaluator. So in a team if there are people with Complete_Finisher-Monitor_Evaluator orientations I am free to take my primary orientations. However if there are none then my frustration will build and I will switch to secondary.

There are others like this. Critically they do not place people in boxes (types) or argue that these are fundamental or unchanging. IN fact they change over time according to context.

So, Dave, it sounds like you would side with the assertion that personality is a social construction, and that it is constructed in context, and not with the assertion that personality, behaviour and compulsions are largely formed and set in early childhood that exhibit certain types of responses, roles and behaviour in certain contexts?

Don't put words in my mouth Aiden!

Lots of aspects of the way we respond to things are laid down at various times of our lives and those can be triggered or modified in context (who we are with, what has happened before etc. etc.). Genetics play a part as well, so do the myth structures of the society in which we live.

Within the context of our behaviour in a work context, then I think the fluidity is if anything higher. Now the early childhood concept and types appeals to a certain type of manager who wants things neat and tidy and deterministic ( and a certain type of psychometric test creator and commercial exploiter).

I can reject the primitive crudities of Myers Briggs without having to fall into the incoherent relativism of the social constructionists!

You mistake me for being a MBTI fan sir.

I am however quite partial to the Enneagram, firstly because of the self-awareness it has helped me journey with, as well as it being a useful framework for understanding how people behave in certain contexts. But, it is just another framework, not the truth ...

I like a distinction between a model and the manner in which a person uses the model. You're right about the deterministic manager who finds it easier to engage in a reductionist application of personality profiling tools because he/she is unable to handle the complexity of dealing with a human being (in context).

I wonder what experiences you've had with the Enneagram that have convinced you of its non-orientation nature and application?

Most of these models work as a means of having a conversation or triggering a reflection. Its how I used them for years when I was a General Manager. I used a different set every six months for seven years (including the astrology one). The only ones I used consistently were Belbin and SDI dand we used those as they demonstrated shifts and changes to adjust to context in the team as a whole.

The Enneagram is a categorization model, hence my earlier comments, so if I don't like the theoretical base I would be dubious about its use, other than as the Gypsy's crystal ball (which also enables a conversation). None of that would derogate its use as an instrument for partial sense-making (as you describe it)

Thanks Dave for the link to the fun site, hilarious.
Regarding "means of having a conversation": if that's the issue, you could use Rohrschach inkblots instead?
And: I like alchemy, it's a phantastic system - I just don't believe in it.