Hey Heidi! I’m going to try and be brief because I can geek out on this all day.
I wrote about MBTI (and the science and criticism of it) a little in November: https://opensource.com/open-organization/18/11/design-communities-personality-types Some of the criticisms of the MBTI stem from the fact that a woman who was key in its development didn’t formally study psychology. She was theorizing before women even got the vote. Katherine Myers, however, devoured Carl Jung’s writings and nowadays we readily acknowledge the fact that people can be experts in things they didn’t formally study. Regardless of the personality assessment tool used, it’s tricky (and IMHO dangerous) to pull "cognitive diversity" away from D&I. Our beautifully f’d up capitalist patriarchy has an effect on how women think and act (read about gender priming), how stigma and stereotyping plays a role in a minority’s ability to get a raise – things like this. In short - a female ENTP is not the same as a male ENTP, and a minority Big Five is not the same as a cis male Big Five. To answer your second question, I call it “dangerous” to extrapolate cognitive diversity because there’s the risk that people focus on it and create D&I initiatives that forgets or exclude how cognitive diversity is also related to the social and cultural context. —laura PS: Also interesting to think about on cognitive diversity is growth vs fixed mindset and the relationships of political/religious views to cognitive diversity. Laura Hilliger laurahilliger.com <http://laurahilliger.com/>Twitter <> | Mastodon <> | LinkedIn <> co-founder of weareopen.coop <http://weareopen.coop/> <http://weareopen.coop/> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 9:07 PM, Tory Gattis <[email protected]> wrote: > > When I was at McKinsey, they taught MBTI as way of better understanding > different client executives we might be working with and what kinds of > arguments they do and don’t respond to (for example, the argument “others are > already doing this” gets a positive response from some MBTI types and a > negative response from other ones). The science behind it may not be rock > solid, but the very big thing it does do is help people better understand the > perspectives of others and where they’re coming from, and that’s half the > battle in collaboration. The advantage of MBTI is that it’s very intuitive > and with a pretty modest amount of training you can learn to identify others’ > probable types after only a small amount of interaction (i.e. you don’t have > to get them to take a test, which is usually not an option). > > On a lighter note, one of my favorite MBTI personality charts from the Star > Wars universe (or maybe I just like that I’m Yoda, lol ;-) > https://www.personalityclub.com/blog/star-wars-personality-chart/ > <https://www.personalityclub.com/blog/star-wars-personality-chart/> > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of Sam Knuth > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 2:53 PM > To: Heidi Hess von Ludewig <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Openorg-list] REQUEST: Thoughts on cognitive/personality typing > tools and effect on D&I > > This is a great topic, Heidi. There is also the "big five", which goes by a > couple of other names - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits> > > Some recent writing on the topic has made me a bit skeptical of these tests > in general (have you heard of the book "the personality brokers"?), and I > think there has been some research into the negative impact these kinds of > tests, if institutionalized and/or overly depended on, can cause unintended > effects. > > On TILT 365, that one I have deeper knowledge of than others because it is > used extensively at Red Hat. I've worked with the founder of Tilt, and I do > believe it is based on research (whereas MBTI I believe was not, but I'm sure > there has been a lot since it was created). There is info on the research > behind tilt here: > https://www.tilt365.com/Resources/Knowledge-Base/tilt-specific-character-science-research > > <https://www.tilt365.com/Resources/Knowledge-Base/tilt-specific-character-science-research> > > This article I found interesting - > https://newrepublic.com/article/151098/personality-brokers-book-review-invention-myers-briggs-type-indicator > > <https://newrepublic.com/article/151098/personality-brokers-book-review-invention-myers-briggs-type-indicator> > > Sam > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:11 AM Heidi Hess von Ludewig <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Dear team, > > The Background > I've been thinking alot about cognitive Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) after > recently trying to run a meeting ( [1] more detail below) and I'm curious > about the current tools used to measure/describe these differences. > > Typing tools > From what I understand, there are two major personality/style/cognitive > diversity tools, backed by research: > Myers-Briggs - a conventional standard! Based on Jung's work on personality > types. Useful, I think, but not well-rounded in that it doesn't consider > motivation, or healthy/unhealthy versions. > Enneagram - which I really happen to like as I feel it's thorough and useful, > integrates relational aspects of each type, healthy/unhealthy versions, and I > know several Silicon Valley companies using it, some in conjunction with The > 15 Commitments of Conscious Leadership > <https://www.amazon.com/15-Commitments-Conscious-Leadership-Sustainable-ebook/dp/B00R3MHWUE> > > I know of some less used / popular tools: > DISC - assessment grounded in research focusing behavior preferences, how > they change over time, and interact with group dynamics - very useful to my > way of thinking. > TILT 360 (used at Red Hat but not backed by research that I know of). > > The Request > I am curious to poll this group in order to know your thoughts: > What cognitive/personality/behavior typing tools do you or your workplaces > use? > How does using them help or hinder Diversity and Inclusion in your workplace? > > Best wishes, > -- > Heidi > > > [1] As a program manager, I'm always trying to organize work, especially > strategic, undefined work. I was in a meeting with support engineers where it > became really obvious that I was an intuitive person -- who has a hard time > trying to articulate my ideas on the fly [hello introvert!] - but who is very > comfortable working with ambiguity and I was trying to organize a team where > the majority of people who need details and definition, a clear path, before > getting started. It's a relatively new team, so I learned a lot about how to > work with them in that one hour time block... but it did spur curiosity on > D&I and how different people can be from a cognitive standpoint. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Heidi Hess von Ludewig > Senior Interlock Program Manager > > Strategic Services, Customer Experience & Engagement > "Managed outcomes. Maximized success." > > Local time - US EST (Raleigh, NC) > IRC: heidiHVL email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > _______________________________________________ > Openorg-list mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list > <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list> > > > -- > SAM KNUTH > SENIOR DIRECTOR, CUSTOMER CONTENT SERVICES > Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> > What's App:: +1 (612) 840-1785 <tel:612-840-1785> > <https://red.ht/sig> > > _______________________________________________ > Openorg-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
_______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
