Hi all, I will respond to Sam, Tory's and then Laura's emails.... :) Sam, I agree that models for human behavior never replace the actual human being. Models and data are just lenses used to look at something -- each model has a different way of viewing, a different theme, and produce a different description. I can't speak for people who think models are a silver bullet for understanding human behavior but I don't see them as such, and perhaps this needs to be made clear in any discussions I author or lead! I think it's great that TILT published materials on its model and I will have to read the research on TILT365 but when I say "research" I mean academic / peer reviewed research, open to published/public criticism. So, I will have to look at that material and see what I think. When I do a search on lib.ncsu.edu I did not find any thing on TILT by Pam Boney.
Tory, thanks for the details on how you have seen the MBTI used.... I love the link. I'm half R2-D@ and Yoda married to Luke Skywalker LOL! You need to send me yours :) awesome. Laura, Thanks for the linky to your article! I will be sure to read it. I'm actually trying to tie cognitive diversity to D&I, I don't see them as separate. (Am I missing something?) ... and you bring up a good point, one model/descriptive lens for diversity can impact another (gender + MBTI, in your example). Since people are social, we are always contextual and cultural. Maybe some of what we are talking about is the idea that people who aren't well versed critical thinkers take the easy way out by saying "we will use this model for our D&I planning, and then we will be awesome!" but we know it's more complicated than that -- that models are not 100% complete, they do not replace the thing itself. Best wishes, and thanks for the thoughts, Heidi On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:33 AM Laura Hilliger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > Twitter | Mastodon | LinkedIn > co-founder of 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/ > > *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 > > 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 > > This article I found interesting - > 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]> > 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: > > 1. *What cognitive/personality/behavior typing tools do you or your > workplaces use? * > 2. *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] > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > _______________________________________________ > Openorg-list mailing list > [email protected] > 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 <612-840-1785> > <https://red.ht/sig> > > _______________________________________________ > Openorg-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list > > > -- Heidi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
