Would anyone know of any other Personality Inventory tests other than Myers Briggs and Insight Profiling that could be used for a big blue chip companies Kick off Meeting in January next year for 100 people? Are MBTI and Insight Profiling the best and the most wellknown? As many directors and managers have been through these I was wondering if there are any new different ones out there? It will be facilitated during a global Kick Off meeting which is based around Innovation.
Many Thanks,
Anna
anna
31 Responses
Innovation – personality Inventory
Hi Anna
There are many personality profiles but few lend themselves to your proposed application. To me two come to mind:
1) The SDI – quick, reliable and you can plot all attendees on one chart to show the spread (http://www.personalstrengths.co.uk/)
2) The Creatrix – again quick reliable, you can show the culture of the organisation by plotting all participants on one chart, showing the culture of the organisation and their approach to innovation. (http://www.creatrix.com or http://www.rapidbi.com/creatrix
Both tools are engaging and non-threatening, the creatrix is available in a range of languages (if appropriate) not sure about the SDI
Good luck
Mike
sorry to be a pain…
Hi Anna
You are having a Kick Off meeting based around innovation…..why do you want to do an Personality Inventory as your starting point?
Isn’t the possible message something along the lines of “The people with certain profiles/scores are natural innovators and the rest of you aren’t”?.
This might encourage the “aren’t”s to try to be more innovative, or it might make them think,
“So why am I here? Shouldn’t we play to our strengths? Are my days numbered because I’m not seen as an innovator? Who picked this c**p test anyway?”
Sorry to be a pain but I’ve seen this sort of thing happen in similar situations.
Rus
everyone is needed for effective innovation
Hi Rus, you as always raise some interesting points.
One hopes that anyone looking to develop an innovative environment recognises that there is no single personality type that delivers innovation, the culture of the organisation itself will impact the successful and unsuccessful behaviours that may or may not leave to innovative practices.
The work or Dr Jacqueline Byrd (Innovation Equation) suggests that all types of personality are required to direct and drive innovation, but it is about playing people to their strengths. Byrd says that even people that are not creative or risk takers help innovative organisations as their part is to slow down change to some extent, to cause resistance. This is required otherwise there is a real risk that individuals with a high flair for innovation will literally throw out the baby with the bath water and this happens more often than not, because organisations do not listen to the ‘sustainers’ in the world.
It will be interesting to see what happens at Chelsea after last nights change by an ‘innovator’ !
Mike
Thinking-Intentions rather than Personality Preferences…
Anna, I wonder if I might offer a suggestion; this from an MBTI practitioner and someone who has just completed a 12 month leadership development and strategy alignment project with a global energy blue chip who uses Insight.
“Effective Intelligence” is a tried and tested route to improving creativity and innovation (as well as many other things). Its profiling instrument TIP (Thinking-Intentions Profile) has an excellent pedigree (30+ years, many international blue chip clients), has great face validity (besides the depth background research) and is available to take on-line (by way of preparation for the kick-off meeting, perhaps). Materials exist to enable a compelling inter-active presentation to a large audience. It could prove a significantly different resource and one that ensures the participants “think about the thinking” that they are contributing to the global whole. http://www.effectiveintelligence.com.
Hope that helps.
All good wishes
Nic Shugar
07966 262022
http://www.nicshugar.co.uk
Logistics
Hi Anna –
I like SDI too – but for such large numbers you’d need, of course, to think about the logistics of completion/admin etc. Myers Briggs can be completed on-line which is helpful.
best wishes
Andie
KAI , ICQ or HBDI
Hi Anna
You could consider Michael Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory.
There’s a previous Training Zone article at:
https://www.trainingzone.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=126316&d=680&h=608&f=626&dateformat=%25e-%25h-%25y
It will explain why there may be conflict within your company – between those who want continuous improvement and those who are true blue sky thinkers.
Or you could look at the Climate for Innovation using a variant of Goran Ekval’s questionnaire. Now called Innovation Climate Questionnaire (ICQ) – http://www.innovationclimatequestionnaire.com
If you incorporate all the results you will get a nice spider for your company.
Background reading:
http://www.m1creativity.co.uk/innovationclimate.htm
Or a Hermann Brain Dominance profile. See http://www.hbdi.com
I’m not affiliated with any of these, but have done them all
Don’t forget that the working population can be neatly divided into two groups – those who have taken psychometric tests and those who haven’t – so be careful with the results of any profiling.
David
http://www.m1creativity.co.uk
Thomas International new products
Thomas International have some neat tests. Snag is the completion issue. Will you be able to site the delegates down and complete a paper-based test under controlled conditions and then feedback the responses?
Or are you looking for some sort of quick self-completion test to do at the Kick-Off meeting.
I think the completion process might guide your decision as much as anything else.
The Apter Motivational Style Profile might be useful
Anna
Might I suggest the Apter Motivational Style Profile (AMSP). The AMSP is based on Reversal Theory, and measures which motivational states the respondent is in over time.
A couple of good reasons for using the AMSP are:
1)The framework has at its core the assertion that we are dynamic, changeable beings. In other words, the profile is used to encourage people to understand how they might be more effective by matching the right state at the right time.
If you use a trait measure, you might just end up telling people that they aren’t likely to be good innovators.
2) Two of the states measured (playful and rebellious) are particularly important to innovation. You can, therefore, use it to lead some very focused discussions.
A word of warning. We really don’t recommend that you simply give out the AMSP. It can add a lot of value if you are prepared to facilitate.
Why not call me on 01509 229 896. We have one or two places left on our last ever free training event in November.
I’m with Rus
Like Rus, I find these “pigeonholing” exercises can alienate people within your group. People are much too complex and unpredictable to be able to make predictions about preferences and behaviour patterns based only on information that can be gleaned in such a short space of time via a single medium (how reliable can the results or a written test be in respect of someone who is dyslexic or a non-native Englishg speaker, for example?).
Much of the theory behind the categorising models of both learning styles and personality profiles has been debunked, anyway, as I understand it.
models debunked?
Karin says “Much of the theory behind the categorising models of both learning styles and personality profiles has been debunked, anyway, as I understand it.”
Well Karin, I for one would love to know your source(s).
Sure there are many people miss-using these tools, however that is all they are – tools and models. They are there to provide a common language and a framework for discussion. They are not and should not be used as labels.
One of the problems in the world of people development is that many of our colleagues do not do their home work – and spout models as though they are the truth – or worse a religion. They are not. Most have a sound background – its just that we must learn what that background is and us the tools appropriately.
Many people on this and other forums read a book, understand just part of a model and then think they can ‘teach’ others with it. If only it were really that simple.
Lets not under estimate the value of people having a common language – and if it takes a model or ‘test’ to so so who are we to argue?
Mike
Models & Questionnaires (1)
Karyn wrote: “Like Rus, I find these “pigeonholing” exercises can alienate people within your group.”
I think in particular organisational cultures and with particular individuals the idea of being ‘dissected’ by a blunt instrument like a questionnaire can be both alienating and in some cases threatening. In such circumstances I would agree the use of these type of instruments can be destructive.
I also find that in receptive or ambivalent surroundings an incompetent introduction or poor use of the same instruments can very quickly disaffect the very people it was intended to help and develop.
Where however the work is undertaken sensitively and professionally I have generally found the process to be both welcomed and productive, which is contrary to your experience. And whilst I do not deny your experience of these tools others clearly do not share them or regularly encounter such a negative response.
Karyn continued: “People are much too complex and unpredictable to be able to make predictions about preferences and behaviour patterns based only on information that can be gleaned in such a short space of time via a single medium.”
I would concur that people are indeed complex, but ‘unpredictable’? We generally all have traits and preferences which manifest themselves in behaviours and action that we take. What type, to what extent and to what depth we can define those traits is a question that is still being explored, but I daily observe predictable behaviours which reflect the beliefs and traits of the individual/s concerned. Actions which run contrary to type are the exception rather than the rule, hence they draw our attention.
Karyn added: ‘(how reliable can the results or a written test be in respect of someone who is dyslexic or a non-native Englishg(sic) speaker, for example?)’.
Anyone who did not take the time to consider these factors before administering any test or questionnaire would indeed produce results of no validity. But where would the ‘fault’ lie here; with the test or the person delivering the test? The latter I think.
Models & Questionnaires (2)
Karyn concluded: ‘Much of the theory behind the categorising models of both learning styles and personality profiles has been debunked, anyway, as I understand it.’
I am familiar with a report you referenced in a earlier discussion: Written by Coffield, Ecclestone et al at:
http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/
However, the report being academic in nature does not address one of the very important issues of test or model usage. It offers no real insight into whether the test instruments or models are useful and productive in an organisational context. It does however state (for instance) that the Honey & Mumford Learning Styles questionnaire has the following strengths:
“To help managers/ employees to devise personal development plans.
To show managers how to help their staff learn.
To be used as a starting point for discussion and improvement with a knowledgeable tutor.
Suggestions made to help people strengthen an under-utilised style.”
It’s weaknesses are:
“All the suggestions are derived logically or from practice with using the LSQ; they have not been rigorously tested to see if they work.”
Well, I have used this very instrument virtually every month for the last 10 years to introduce trainers and learners to ideas about how we might exploit and create a more productive learning experience. This positive and constructive experience is not diminished by concerns around issues like norm group channelling, statistical analysis or rigorous empirical testing. The instrument and concept (for me) is merely a tool to explore, introduce, reflect on and build with. That said it is also a classic example of Mike Morrison’s observation that many people only half understand a theory and go on to do more damage than good, a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. I have observed more than once a trainer administering the Learning Styles questionnaire and then learners suddenly labelling themselves Activists or Reflectors and denying that they can learn anything from situations that do not match their learning preferences. This is of course complete rubbish and not at all what is suggested by Honey & Mumford, and yet chronic trainers collude with the learners to reinforce this concept and consequently reduce those individual’s opportunities to learn. Again, is this a fault of the questionnaire/model or the trainer administering it? And once again, it is the latter.
Karyn I support your raising of concerns on the use (or as I see it misuse) of some models but not their total dismissal. Your previous posting on this issue produced a really interesting read for me, thankyou.
Pragmatic application v. Academic caution
This debate is proving to be a helpful reminder that “it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it” and also that so much depends on who is delivering and their adherence to and explication of how the instrument is designed to add value in everyday (working) life.
That being said, I want to return to the need behind Anna’s original question… a recommendation of something practical – offering insights and pragmatic tools, something that is different and that will stand up in front of an important and influential audience.
Effective Intelligence has significant potential in this regard. It is considered to be the ONLY inventory that tells you how you like to THINK and that is then followed through with how you SHOULD think to achieve a particular outcome – the Thinking Maps and Conceptual Tools.
Thinking is both “upstream of behaviour” and an essential ingredient of Innovation.
Anna, I hope you take a moment to review its properties.
Kind regards
Nic Shugar
What matters – Trait or State?
This debate clearly reflects the state versus train debate, in particular around whether people are dynamic or not, and predictable or not.
I’m a dyed-in-the-wool state man myself. That’s because my training was in sport psychology, and in the moment of performance, traits are irrelevant. In sport psychology, traits were pretty much abandoned as a useful avenue for research into performance around the late 70’s and early 80’s.
However, now I work in business, and I see an increasingly complex, decreasingly predictable world. My view is that traits don’t really help us in that world.
I don’t doubt that we have a relatively stable pattern of behaviours/motivations/emotions over time, but that does not make us predictable in the moment. Underneath that relatively stable pattern, there is a dynamic one. We are influenced by our environment and indeed, can feel quite differently about something from time to time without anything else changing.
Ultimately any profile has its limitations. The Apter Motivational Style Profile is based on state psychology and the report is written to encourage thinking about states, but without a facilitator that can guide the respondent to think about how their styles change from situation to situation, and when they are more or less effective, what is it other than a snapshot?
If you want to predict, then maybe traits are all you have, but if people can change – and we know they can – what’s the point?
Taking it back to Anna’s question? What do you do if a trait measure tells you that you are unlikely to be a good innovator – and you are in a role that requires innovation? Do you move or change? What messages do trait psychology give out bout that?
Cheers,
Rob
http://www.apterinternational.com/profiling
Facet5 Personality Inventory
Hi Anna, MBTI and Insight are possibly the most wellknown profiling tools out there, but there is a new generation of tools that I would consider far more ‘user friendly’. The Facet5 Personality Profiling system is one of these. Everyone who has been through an MBTI knows their descriptive, but what does this actually mean? Facet5 is based on a ‘big 5’ personality model; analysing people’s will, energy, control, affection and emotionality and produces the results in a very easy to follow report, with lots of helpful guidance notes. Questionnaires are completed online and are available in foreign languages (if required).
Facet5 works at all levels of organisations, for many different purposes including team development, coaching, recruitment and talent development.
However, I would say that for an event such as you describe, it is the work/activities around the use of the tool that adds the most value and could produce a vibrant kick-off session.
To check out more information on Facet5, go to: http://www.icebergtools.com/profiling-tools.php.
Kind regards
Jo
Try The Character Index
You may wish to try The Character Index. Your audience will not have experienced the powerful results this delivers. It can be completed on-line prior to the event with the results delivered on the day.
You can view at:
http://personal-transformation.com/default.aspx?cid=249.
If you wish to take your own character assessment drop me an email and I will send you a link to try.
Kind regards
Ken Buist
New kid on the block
Anna
If you have a need to kick off your Kick Off meeting with psychometrics, then you should consider two from the stable of a “new kid on the block”. Actually been around for some years and well respected around the business globe, but does not trip off the tongue as oldies like MBTI.
Have a look at the website http://www.glowinkowski.com
Dr Steven G is the man. Check out the “how we can help you” tab and then click “personality and motivation”. The two to view are GPI & GMI. Good tools being currently used by some other blue-chip companies.
As ever, one to one feedback by trained people is the key to gaining most from the results but alternatives can be handled.
Ray
Profiling tools
Anna
As a prolific user of a wide variety of profiling instruments myself, I wouldn’t actually start from there.
Might you not consider your event’s objectives and particpants’ needs first?
And if you your focus is on innovation, perhaps have a read of Simon’s excellent item on this topic in this issue of TZ for some more thoughts?
Having said that – OK then, have a look at KAI? (From Dr Michael Kirton which spreads personal preferences for ‘adaptation’ versus ‘innovation’ on a scale, and reveals the need for ‘human bridges’ in to link those colleagues with markedly different preferences.)
If I wasn’t on-line answering this, I’d check out a web site address for you, but google Kirton to get there?
Good luck!
Jeremy
Try VAK
Anna
To kick off with a hundred people and any sort of test could be a problem. But try a simple VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic)test. It easy to understand and can immediatly stike a cord. You can download one free here http://www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm
Predilection & Predictability
Rob Robson wrote: “I don’t doubt that we have a relatively stable pattern of behaviours/motivations/emotions over time, but that does not make us predictable in the moment. Underneath that relatively stable pattern, there is a dynamic one. We are influenced by our environment and indeed, can feel quite differently about something from time to time without anything else changing.”
Yes, we are influenced by our environment and react to it on a constant and ongoing basis. But I also think that as humans we have traits which emerge in our actions as natural preferences or inclinations. I am not suggesting that having a trait does not preclude or prevent us from following a different path, however, that underpinning trait I believe most surely can and does influence our choices and actions, not always and not in every situation, but a lot of the time in many situations.
Rob Robson continued: “Ultimately any profile has its limitations. The Apter Motivational Style Profile is based on state psychology and the report is written to encourage thinking about states, but without a facilitator that can guide the respondent to think about how their styles change from situation to situation, and when they are more or less effective, what is it other than a snapshot?”
I am not familiar with Apter so I cannot comment on it. Any analysis of this sort can be described as a snapshot, but, particular instruments can reflect or highlight traits or personality factors which are consistent and an underpinning theme.
Rob Robson concluded: “If you want to predict, then maybe traits are all you have, but if people can change – and we know they can – what’s the point?”
The point (at least for me) is that recognising our traits or natural preferences can inform the decisions we make and the actions we take and consequentially broaden our options.
This is an interesting debate!
Birkman has good system
I have been trained and studied a few different assessments through the years. A company I was with used the Birkman assessment and it REALLY was good. Worth talking to them about.
http://www.birkman.com/
These two are worth looking at
Here are a couple of suggestions, with snippets from their websites giving a quick overview:
The HBDI http://www.hbdi-uk.com
The foundation of the Herrmann concept is the individual profile called the H.B.D.I. The Personal profile, is compelling in the ease of which the results can be understood and their implications grasped. Group data can be produced for teams. This concept provides a very clear and simple ‘language’ – verbal and visual – in which to explain many issues at both personal and corporate levels. It can be used very effectively in team building, communication, project management, change management and to explore corporate culture.
Four Groups http://www.fourgroups.com
Four Groups links the behavioural aspects of people management to bottom line performance. Firstly, Four Groups introduces a new approach to articulate and predict relationships. Secondly, by applying a proprietary formula, it is possible to calculate the link between behaviour, costs and their impact on sales.
Both surveys would need to be completed beforehand and both offer some interesting group data.
Hermann Brain Dominance Inventory
I completed this quite a while ago, and was very impressed with the research basis on which it was built: I would unhestitatingly recommend it over the Myers Briggs (which I have also done), as I felt it gave more information and was based more firmly in research.
Please Try JTI/OPP/15FQ+ from Psytech UK
Hi Anna,
I would recommend you three of them:
1. Jung Type Indicator as a modern equivalent of MBTI
2. Occupational Personality Profile which gives very good report
3. 15 Factor Questionnaire Plus which has the same roots as 16PF, but produces intersting report including Leadership/subordinate style, influencing stle, Team roles, EQ, Career themes etc in addition to Thinking, Interpersonal and Coping styles.
The graphs are very useful to compare with other team members.
More info from http://www.psytech.co.uk
Hope this helps.
Jo
jo@indiafacilitation.org
Big 5 Personality Profiling
Hi Anna, as you probably know. MBTI is very costly and is pretty old.(2nd generation) I’m very impressed by PeopleClues. (6th generation)It’s web based, takes 20 minutes to run through, is pretty cheap and doesn’t need a trained interpretor.
The graphs and reports are very easy to understand and once taken, the data can be used for many different reasons. My contact details are 01908 507488 or e-mai me.
Regards
Roy Scott
MBTI Step 2 is the version I like to use
Most people are familiar with MBTI Step 1 which gives the well known 4 letter type. However it can confuse lots of people who think that part of them is the opposite letter! Step 2 goes into much more detail and each letter has 5 subfacets. It then becomes possible to be for example a P but with an “out of preference score” (OOPS) for being “Scheduled”. Step 2 has to be done online because it is more complex but it gives candidates a fascinating 20 page Report, to which I add various other summaries so they get a very complete insight into who they are and how they are likely to approach certain key behavioural issues. In order that he/she fully understands all the info I do a 45 minute phone debrief and agree a SMART Action Plan with them.
I have found MBTI 2 really valuable with Teams as it shows where the crossovers are which may not be so obvious with the basic 4 letter typing. If you would like to discuss in more detail eml me at plewis@leadershape.biz and I will be happy to give you chaper & verse! Combined with FIRO-B this is a very powerful intervention which can also take you into the area of EI.
Best wishes
PL
The original question
Very interesting comments and lots of useful data here.
My observation is that the original question asked for instruments that could be successfully used for 100 people as part of an induction – so it also needs to be able to be used in the form of a large Group Exercse, I would think. This will cut down on many of the suggestions (unless you know how the suggestions could be applied in this case). It needs to be pretty elastic in how it’s administered/de-briefed. Having recently done an MBTI for 86 in a group I know it works well for this.
best wishes
Andie
not sure if this is the same thing…
I don’t have a huge amount of knowledge with these, but have come across a couple that I can send you the writeups/cost for.
Kind regards
Jacquie Green
t: 01884 821870
jacquie@iol-uk.co.uk
Follow on on original question
Hi Anna,
having been taken to task by my good friend Andie Hemming on People Clues, I thought a supplementary comment would be a good idea.
Can I ask what the goal would be to use a profiling tool at a kick off meeting? Many of these revolve around new challenges, goals, objectives etc.on a corporate basis. Would using a profiling tool support that? If so, then I still recommend PeopleClues as it could be used to produce personal development goals for the attendees that could support an overall theme of going forward at the kick off meeting. It could literally make the session a much more personal one and generate some good buy in from the delegates.
How you administer the profiling would need to be thought through but it would offer an opportunity to explain how to use the results as part of the day.
Hope this helps.
Roy
Personality profiling
Yay to Peter for two things!
First for mentioning MBTI Step II for those who may welcome further ‘granularity’ of their overall MBTI Step I profile. (Which may well explain why an ‘Extravert’ may have many ‘Introvert’ preferences even so, etc etc).
Second, for linking MBTI with FIRO-B, which cross-correlates beautifully with much valuable research.
Nevertheless, personally I’d be very reluctant to do this for a large group. Ethically, I think the results can be ‘too personal’; and practically, MBTI Step II needs to be answered on-line and my own experience of getting larger senior groups to do this reliably before any event is not great!
I personally feel that Step II may be much better in a far more intimate setting, such as in small team-development or even better in 1:1 coaching.
Meanwhile, I stick by my earlier comments below! And I’d also counsel caution in finding new ‘flavour of the month’ profiling tools in any context.
The instrument is not the issue, its the output that matters. Further, the newer the profiling tool, the less ethical research and data-gathering there can be. This doesn’t mean to say there isn’t always room for new insights. Rather, the newer the instrument, the greater the danger that the research base may not be as well developed. Face-validity is of course terribly important, but without wider research there is a great danger of falling into what my Occ Psychologist colleagues call the ‘Cosmopolitan Questionnaire’ trap: intriguing for many to fill in but not always that reliable or helpful.
Kind regards
Jeremy
Personality Type Inventory
Check out my product: The PEOPLE Process at http://www.thepeopleprocess.com It’s based on the MBTI and is really easy to use. You can purchase the participant’s packages for each person attending the conference, and the trainer’s manual and powerpoint and put on the training very successfully yourself. I know your group will absolutely love it!