Know Thyself: MBTI and DiSC

In my practice as an executive coach and consultant, I use both the MBTI® and the DiSC®. I am often asked, “Which one is better?”

The question reveals a common misunderstanding about psychological instruments. The fact is, there is no such thing as “the best” psychological instrument. As consultants who use psychological instruments our challenge is to choose the “appropriate” psychological instrument.

As long as a psychological instrument has been subjected to rigorous validity and reliability testing (the only type I will use in practice) it probably has an appropriate use.

The Oracle of Delphi, centuries ago, recommended “Know thyself.” I would add, “Know others too!” Psychological instruments have been designed to measure almost any psychological or behavioral dimension you can imagine. In addition to the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and the DiSC Classic, here is a sample of other helpful instruments:

Kirton Adaption/Innovation Inventory (creativity and problem solving styles)


Change Style Indicator (change styles)


Strength Deployment Indicator (conflict styles)


Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (career choices)


FIRO Element B (need for inclusion, control, and openness)



All of these instruments have valuable appropriate uses.

Let’s go back to the comparison of the MBTI and the DiSC. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is based on the theory of Dr. Carl Jung. The DiSC (originally called the Personal Profile System®) is based on the theory of Dr. William Marston. Both of these gentlemen developed their theories during the early 1900s.

MBTI

Dr. Carl Jung, a psychiatrist, attempted to identify the basic personality traits that differentiate normal people. Jung described three bi-popular dimensions of personality in his work entitled “Psychological Types.” He discussed extraversion versus introversion (an individual preference to engage in the outer world versus a preference to focus on the inner world).

Jung believed individuals prefer one of two “functions” for gathering data: sensing or intuiting. Sensors prefer to use the five senses to gather “real” data. Intuitors look beyond the five senses for patterns and meaning. Sensors tend to be present-oriented, while intuitors tend to be future-oriented.

Jung also believed individuals also prefer one of two “functions” for processing data and coming to conclusions: thinking or feeling. Thinkers prefer logic and objectivity, while feelings prefer personal values and subjectivity. Thinkers and feelers arrive at very different conclusions because of the criteria they use to evaluate information.

Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, a mother-daughter team, worked to operationalize Jung’s theory of three personality dimensions. Briggs and Myers also added a fourth dimension based on Jung’s ideas. This fourth dimension considers an individual’s preference for managing the “outer world.”

An MBTI practicing (after training and passing a certification exam) can help an individuals and team become aware of their own preferences and the preferences of others. With additional training, an MBTI consultant can help an individual understand and manage his or her “dark side.” The dark side of the personality, the least preferred of Jung’s functions, comes out when the individual is tried, stressed, or under pressure. These are valuable insights for anybody who desires to be effective.

DiSC

It is difficult to compare the DiSC to the MBTI because the instruments measure different things. While the MBTI measures personality types, the DiSC measures behaviors in various situations.

Dr. William Marston, a physiological psychologist, studied how an individual perceived him or herself in a situation, the resulting emotions of the perception, and the likely subsequent behavior. Marston’s model has two critical dimensions:

· the situation is perceived as either favorable or unfavorable
· the individual perceives him or herself as more or less powerful than the situation

Marston tried to explain how people adapted to varying situations by understanding their emotional responses and subsequent behavior. Thus, the DiSC instrument helps people understand behavior (their own and others) in various situations.

The electronic version of the DiSC can be taken on-line without a coach or consultant.

Click here to take the DiSC online at my website.

To learn more about using psychological instruments read chapter six of my book “Strategic Organizational Learning.” There are always free articles available about this and other related topics on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Strategic Organizational Learning

The cost of training in North American companies exceeds $60 billion per year. Try to visualize that. Picture a stack of 1,000,000 $1 bills. Now try to picture 60,000 of those stacks. Amazed? Then consider this fact: estimates of training costs worldwide approach a quarter of a trillion dollars ($250,000,000,000) when indirect costs and opportunity costs are included. Do you find those numbers as difficult to comprehend as I do?

Understandably, senior executives are concerned about the ROI (return on investment) on these massive investments. Many executives are not convinced that the benefits of training exceed the costs.

Corporations are now looking for organizational learning (OL) consultants who can serve as partners in the strategic decision making about these large investments of resources. These OL consultants will be expected to help improve not only learning, but ultimately performance.

To serve as strategic business partners, OL consultants must have expertise in adult learning theory, methods to promote self-directed learning, usage of learning and development agreements, knowledge capture, knowledge transfer, management and professional development, expatriate training and support, corporate universities, and what I call “strategic learning.”

The first step for the OL consultant is to be sure the organization has a well-crafted strategic plan that clearly communicates how senior management intends to fulfill the organization’s mission. Frequently, the organization has a vague mission and/or unrealistic strategic plan. There is no way to develop strategic learning and development systems until senior management has completed the strategic planning process.

Only after the organization has a well-crafted, well-communicated strategic plan can the OL consultant recommend learning and development systems that will help implement the plan. “Strategic learning” is learning that is focused on helping the organization fulfill its strategic plan.

Senior management must be able to depend on OL consultants to maximize the organization’s investment of money, time, and other resources to build its human capital into a sustainable competitive advantage. In an era when human capital is far more important than physical assets, the role of the OL consultant is critical.

Raymond Noe has made the following predictions:

* the focus of learning will become business needs and performance

* there will be increased emphasis on the capture and storage of intellectual capital

* new training technologies will be developed

* the demand for training for virtual work will increase

* the use of learning management systems will be widespread

*HRD departments will develop partnerships with outside vendors (e.g., traditional universities)

*the practice of outsourcing training activities will continue

Senior management will be seeking the OL consultant’s advice on all of these issues. Are you and your organization prepared to address these issues?

To learn more about becoming a strategic OL consultant read my book “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which is currently available on my website. Additionally, there are always free articles available about organizational and individual effectiveness on my website www.mikebeitler.com.

The Death of the OD Practitioner

In my recent book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” I made some controversial remarks about the continuing decline in the field of OD. Let me be blunt here: “OD is dead.”

My comments and the comments of others, such as those of Jerry Harvey, have enflamed the passions of the few remaining adherents to the faith known as OD. David Bradford and Warner Burke have published a new book, entitled “Reinventing Organization Development,” which appears to be a last stand to defend the faith. (I received a complimentary copy of the book this week. Considering my views of OD, it is quite a compliment indeed.)

For the uninitiated, let me briefly discuss what OD practitioners believe and why OD practitioners have failed to convert others to their beliefs.

Organization Development (OD) practitioners (note, if you use the word “organizational” instead of “organization” you will not be accepted as one of them), claim to represent the applied behavioral sciences approach to the fields of organizational change and change management.

While various approaches in any professional practice are welcomed and healthy, OD practitioners have never been completely forthright and honest about their beliefs. OD practitioners are staunch believers in humanistic philosophy, and they practice their faith with cult-like devotion. OD practitioners stand together against “strategic” approaches, “economic” approaches, and “capitalistic” approaches to organizational change, change management, or doing business.

While other organizational consultants, such as trainers, organizational learning consultants, HR consultants, and management consultants in general are seeking to become strategic business partners, OD practitioners still refuse to “partner” with their clients to produce business results.

Christopher Worley, one of the defenders of OD, has said OD is “concerned with learning and growth… [not] performance.” Clearly, management is, and should be, concerned with performance. Management is responsible to multiple stakeholder groups. Businesses are not founded to make employees happy; businesses are founded to serve the needs of all their stakeholders (customers, stockholders, and the community in general, not just employees).

OD practitioners look at business executives (their clients) with disdain. They see business people as bourgeois money-seekers who don’t care about the worker. They look down their noses at the “capitalists,” who incidentally happen to be their clients. Bradford and Burke complain about “OD and its marginal position.” Is there any wonder why? Why should anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-management rhetoric be appreciated in the boardroom? OD practitioners do not want the responsibility for “performance,” but they do want the right to criticize the hard decisions management must make.

I believe there are two reasons why the OD practitioner has declined in importance and is now dead: 1) OD practitioners have not adopted a strategic partnering approach with management, and 2) many OD practices have already been adopted by mainstream corporations. Let me comment briefing about how OD has marginalized itself by not partnering with its client, and then I want to comment about the positive contributions of OD practitioners.

First, OD practitioners have marginalized themselves with cult-like vocabulary designed to separate themselves from the clients they serve. In his article, entitled “The Future of OD: Or, Why Don’t They Take the Tubes Out of Grandma?” Jerry Harvey included a list of this off-putting verbiage: “deconflicting, leadershiping, gridding, sensitizing, feedbacking, spiritualizing, T-grouping, rolfing, deep sensing, cheese chasing, renewing, life balancing, energizing, story telling, holistic knowing, mind mapping, Enneagramming,…”

So am I saying OD has been worthless? Not at all. OD practitioners have contributed many ideas that are now common practice in corporate America. Even some of OD most hated “enemies” (such as Jack Welsh) adopted many OD practices.

The second reason I believe OD is dead is the fact that the OD movement succeeded! Many OD practices, such as empowerment and participative management, are now part of organizational culture and practice in mainstream American business. Even if the initial intentions of OD were anti-business, anti-capitalism, and anti-management, the result of adopting OD practices has been higher productivity of profits. But, in addition to higher productivity and profits, I believe we also have “happier” empowered workers.

Yes, I believe OD is dead. But, I believe OD should be buried with honor. OD’s contributions were ultimately significant for all stakeholders in American business.

What’s next? OD practitioners should drop the anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-management rhetoric and the OD practitioner banner that it represents. It’s time to become consultants who serve clients as strategic partners.

To learn more about becoming a strategic business partner read my books “Strategic Organizational Change” and “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which are both currently available on my website. Additionally, there are always free articles about organizational and individual effectiveness available on my website www.mikebeitler.com

Seven Essential Elements of Leading Change

In my practice as an organizational effectiveness consultant, the most frequent phone call I receive involves clients and prospective clients asking how to overcome resistance to change in their organizations.

Throughout my book, Strategic Organizational Change, I recommend a strategy-driven approach to planning and implementing change. Unfortunately, many organizations do not follow a systematic approach (my approach or anybody else’s) for planning and implementing change.


An Unworkable “Plan”

Most organizations still attempt the following “plan” for organizational change:

1. senior management determines that a change is needed
2. the CEO announces the change to “the troops”

Needless to say, this “plan” is inviting resistance.


Seven Essential Change Elements

In the unworkable plan above, senior management has failed to consider the following seven essential elements for successful organizational change:

1. Involve the people who will be affecting (and affected by) the change. Get their input. Workers are a valuable source of information for management decision making. Today’s workers want to be part of what’s happening. (No buy-in from these folks guarantees resistance.)

2. Communicate a good reason for the change. Human beings can change quickly when they see a way to maximize benefits and/or minimize threats. Make sure the change is seen as relevant and strategy-driven. (Busy people will resist changes that they see as irrelevant.)

3. Designate a champion for the change. A senior executive does not have to take the champion role. In fact, it might be better to find someone the workers can relate to. (Natural leaders, many times in unofficial roles, exist throughout every organization. Take advantage of their leadership ability.)

4. Create a transition management team. This cross-functional team can provide emotional support as well as practical ideas for change leaders. (Remember, no one individual is charismatic or talented enough to effectively implement an organizational change single-handedly.)

5. Provide training in new skills, behaviors, and values. If workers fear a loss of competency, they will resist change. They will revert back to the old skills, behaviors, and values when they feel threatened. (Change invariably involves a threat to one’s current sense of competency.)

6. Bring in outside help. This sounds like a self-serving comment since I am an independent consultant, but the external consultant can play a critical role. An outsider brings a fresh perspective. An outside
consultant doesn’t have an “axe to grind.” (And realistically, most senior managers are not trained in
leading or facilitating organizational change.)

7. Reward people. Remember, whatever behaviors you reward, you get more of. Rewards do not have to be in the form of cash. Acknowledgement, praise, new job assignments, or additional decision-making authority can be more powerful motivators than cash. (In every successful organizational change, people are the essential factor.)

To learn more about effectively leading or facilitating organizational change read my special report entitled “Overcoming Resistance to Change.”