- Here is your Coach to Coach Network (C2CN) Newsletter: Coaching Connections Personality Testing is a $400 Million Industry Two Letters to the Editor of The NewMessage 1 of 1 , Oct 6, 2004View SourceThe Cost of DeathHere is your Coach to Coach Network (C2CN) Newsletter:Coaching ConnectionsPersonality Testing is a $400 Million IndustryTwo Letters to the Editor of The New Yorker regarding theSept. 20, 2004 article on Popular Personality TestsSponsor AnnouncementThis infomediary newsletter is brought to you by the HRD Press/Training House ( www.TrainingHouse.com ) Institute for Life Coach Training (www.LifeCoachTraining.com), B/Coach Systems (www.B-Coach.com), and Human Synergistics International (www.HumanSynergistics.com)If you enjoy and learn from this newsletter's content, please let these sponsors know that you appreciate their contribution to your success. To subscribe, go to www.Coach2Coach.infoCoaching ConnectionsOctober 21ICF Virtual Community Region 2 presents......"Everything you need to know about regulatory activities, but were afraid to ask!"Join us as the ICF Regulatory Committee & Task Force Co-chairs: Pat Williams & DianeBrennan, Candia Dye and Paula Sbragial-Zoricic to discuss the importance of standards, competencies, ethics, and your role as a professional in a self-governed profession. Bring your questions, concerns and thoughts to interact withthe Regulatory Team. Learn why this is important to you and to coaching professionalsaround the world and how this impacts our future as a profession.Thursday, October 21st, 2004 11:30am-1pm Pacific -- 2:30-4pm EasternICF members contact the ICF e-Calendar for the bridge number: http://www.coachfederation.org/calendar/event.cfm?mm=7Non-members please RSVP icfvcprogram2@...
Core Business Team Coaching Skills
by Cynder Niemela
The goal of team coaching is to help a group of people with a common purposeidentify and meet business goals and simultaneously enjoy the journey as a team.
We are looking for your success stories for a new book to be
published in 2005...Stories that illustrate how your services have had
an impact with an already successful business - making it even more
The stories selected will be published in our newsletter where it
will be available to our 20,000 plus subscribers - business owners
and trade association execs whose members number into the hundreds of
thousands of established businesses across North America.
In addition your story will appear on BizWiz.com (where we are
correspondents), whose daily traffic during the last 10 Days of
September 04 is now tracking at a monthly rate of 1.5 million page
In other words, in exchange for your time - a great many people will
have a much better understanding of your value to your clients.
The link to our submission criteria can not be found on our web site,
only here. Please send it along to your colleagues and associates -
people you believe have something to say that will be of interest to
the millions of successful business owners looking outside their
organizations for help with the challenges they face.
Wayne Messick, Consultant to Management
phone: (212) 501-4912
Personality Testing is a $400 Million IndustryIn the September 20, 2004 issue of The New Yorker magazine,Malcolm Gladwell analyzes the shortcomings of popular personalitytests like The Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory and theThematic Apperception Test. Personality testing is a $400 million ayear industry, thanks largely to corporations who want a window intoemployees' strengths and weaknesses.But what can the tests really tell us? The basic answer: "It depends."Human beings have long looked for signs of order in the unruly varietyof our own natures. Today, this need for coherence is met largely bytheories about personality--as measured, usually, by personality tests.All these personality assessments serve the same deeply felt needs:They subdue the blooming, buzzing hive of differences among people.They allow predictions to be made and advice to be dispensed.They permit swift judgments about strangers.They authorize the assignment of individuals, ourselves included, tothe comforting confines of a group.They often justify social arrangements as they are, extending areassuring sense of stability to some.And, most important, they offer to explain why---why we arethe way we are.Perhaps, the most potent effect of personality testing is its most subtle. Foralmost a hundred years it has provided a technology, a vocabulary, and a setof ideas for describing who we are, and many Americans have adopted theseas our own.Personality questionnaires are used even more widely in the workplace: a 2003survey shows that personality tests are now administered by 30 percent ofAmerican companies, from mom-and-pop operations to giants like Wal-Mart andGeneral Motors.Perhaps, no other personality test has achieved the cult status of theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator, an instrument created in the 1940s by aPennsylvania housewife. Fiercely proud of the test she called "my baby,"Isabel Myers believed that it could bring about world peace--or, at least,make everyone a little nicer. The Myers-Briggs, which assigns each testtaker a personality type represented by four letters, is now given to 2.5million people each year, and is used by 89 of the companies in the Fortune 100.Employed by businesses to "identify strengths" and "facilitate teamwork," theMyers-Briggs has also been embraced by a multitude of individuals whoexperience a revelation (what devotees call the "aha reaction") upon learningabout psychological type. Their enthusiasm persists despite research showingthat many test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again.Human beings are complex creatures, and we need simple ways of grasping themto survive. But how we simplify---which shortcuts we take, which approximationswe accept---demands close inspection, especially since these approximations sooften stand in for the real thing."The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to MiseducateOur Children, Mismanage Our Companies, and Misunderstand Ourselves" tellsthe story of one very powerful and pervasive way of understanding ourselves: whereit came from, why it flourished, and how, too often, it fails us. Every personality testpublisher and those professionals who use these instruments in their practice shouldbuy and read this new book.
Author Annie Murphy Pauls new book, "The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests:How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage OurCompanies, and Misunderstand Ourselves (Free Press), joins Host Larry Mantle todiscuss the flaws, as she sees them, in looking to personality tests like theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator to direct our lives, our businesses and how to educateour children. Also, participating is William G. Harris, Executive Director of the Associationof Test Publishers.
Two Letters to the Editor of The New Yorker regarding the Sept. 20, 2004 article on Popular Personality Tests
To the editors:
I am surprised and chagrined at the ill-informed presentation of personality tests in Malcolm Gladwells article (September 20). Mr. Gladwell clearly has no expertise in this area and is in no position to pass judgment on the various tests he discusses, let alone on the accuracy of the views expressed in Annie Murphy Pauls book, Cult of Personality, which he accepts without question. I am especially concerned about the major errors and misrepresentations regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), the most widely used instrument for assessing normal, healthy personality differences. As co-author of the third edition of the MBTI Manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998), and author of many other works on this instrument, I must correct at least a few of the many errors contained in the article. </>
Both Gladwell and Ms. Paul fail to differentiate between gross misuses of the MBTI and its appropriate uses, perhaps because neither has bothered to seek readily available information. Similarly, they misrepresent the MBTIs history, purposes, test characteristics, and long standing as a personality assessment tool. They also fail to point out that, unlike the MMPI or the TAT, which are designed to identify pathology or unconscious psychological complexes, the MBTI identifies equally healthy, adaptive, but opposite ways of using our minds, the four pairs of opposites mentioned (but poorly defined) in Gladwells article. Further, the MBTI elicits a persons preference (not skill or ability) for one of each of these pairs of opposites. For example, Sensing and Intuition are the opposite ways of perceiving (gathering information). As a person who prefers Intuition, I automatically look for patterns and meanings in most situations, rather than attending to facts, details, and concrete reality (a Sensing approach). But my preference for Intuition in no way prevents me from using Sensing when the situation requires it, for example when preparing a financial statement or driving through traffic. I am most comfortable and energized when I can freely use my Intuition and I dont especially enjoy doing most of the Sensing tasks that someone who prefers Sensing would relishbut I can and do use Sensing when necessary. Sensing and all the other less-preferred parts of my personality are available to me. In fact, type theory asserts that all eight parts of ones personality type are necessary to adaptively conduct our lives. We cannot function adaptively by using only four preferred parts.
Gladwell, like many lay people and even professionals, also erroneously assumes that the MBTI can or should be able to identify the type that are more or less successful at different kinds of jobs. In fact, the MBTI only identifies types that are likely to be attracted to or avoid certain careers, work activities, ways of learning, and so on. There is no evidence nor is any claim made that some types excel or do poorly at particular jobs. Some types do predominate in certain careers (because people tend to seek situations that allow them to use their minds in preferred ways), but every one of the sixteen types can be found in most or all career and work settings. Different types may approach their work differently, however, and may have different sources of satisfaction. </>
Rather than being concerned about whether he will come out to be the same type if he took the MBTI again (accurate data on the very acceptable reliability or consistency of the MBTI can be easily found in the 1998 MBTI Manual), Gladwell should be legitimately concerned about whether his reported results (INTJ) accurately describe him or not. Did he read a detailed type description of INTJ? Did a professional interpreter explain the MBTI to him and ask him to verify the accuracy of the results? Did he have access to type descriptions of all sixteen types to help him understand how he may be similar to or different from other people? Was he encouraged to identify the ways in which he may be uniquely different from other people who share his type? Unfortunately, many people who take the MBTI are given little or no information about it and little opportunity to judge whether their results are accurate, or how knowledge of their type might be of use to them.
Myers called her instrument an Indicator and not a test because she carefully constructed and validated it to indicate ones likely type. She knew that personality is too complex to expect any set of questions to be accurate for everyone all of the time! Therefore, Myers insisted that MBTI results be given directly to the person answering the questions. She trusted peoples knowledge of themselves in answering the questions and in judging the accuracy of the results. She developed the MBTI to enhance peoples lives, not limit their choices or stereotype them. It is ironic that for many years Myers was reluctant to publish her instrument (she started developing it in the 1940s) for fear it would be misused and harm people. Gladwells and Pauls misunderstandings of Jung, type theory, and the MBTI are the most recent confirmation of Myers fears.
Naomi L. Quenk, Ph.D.
I was very disappointed to read Malcolm Gladwell's poorly researched article in your Sept. 20 issue. As a user of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator since 1985 and a trainer for the Association for Psychological Type's MBTI Qualifying Program since 1994, I would like to straighten out some of his misunderstandings.
After accurately describing MBTI preferences as "psychological frames," Gladwell proceeds to discuss them as though they were either traits or measures of skill.
A preference is not equivalent to a trait such as aggressiveness; instead, preferences correlate with traits. Traits are features one has in a certain degree, and it's appropriate to speak of someone having a large or small amount of a trait in their make-up. A preference is an either/or category; given the choice, one prefers to approach life in a Judging (J) manner or a Perceiving (P) manner more of the time. Having a preference for Perceiving is not the same as being spontaneous, but spontaneity is one of several ways in which a preference for Perceiving may manifest itself in behavior. Nor do preferences determine behavior. We can choose to exercise our preference or its opposite depending on what is called for by the situation. However, using our preferred style tends to feel more natural, take less energy and concentration, and typically produces better results than using its opposite.
Having a preference is also different from having a skill or competency. Preferring Intuition is not equivalent to using Intuition well. Like a talent or a muscle, a preference must be exercised and developed before it can be used skillfully. The MBTI Manual (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) specifically states, "It is inappropriate to use the MBTI for hiring, promotion or selection. Results on the Indicator simply do not give information that will be helpful in these functions." (p. 360) It is unfortunate that some companies and consultants misunderstand this important point and consequently misuse the MBTI.
Gladwell complains that MBTI questions appear trivial, and he labels the instrument "a parlor game," suggesting that his own invented-on-a-phone-call questionnaire is just as valid. He neglects to mention that the MBTI items have undergone rigorous testing to produce an instrument with levels of reliability and validity considered good to excellent in the field of psychological tests. He also fails to understand that, because we do adapt our behavior to the situation, our natural style shows up most reliably in everyday circumstances where there is little or no pressure to perform in a specific manner, e.g. how we choose to spend an evening.
Finally, Gladwell makes the assumption that all personality testing is (and should be) done for the benefit of the person or organization doing the testing. This is 180 degrees from the intended use of the MBTI. The Indicator was designed to benefit the person taking it, as a tool to help one identify which of the 16 types fits best. Appropriate use of the instrument includes not just an explanation of one's results, but also an opportunity to verify their accuracy, read descriptions of the different types, ask questions. The individual is considered the final authority on his or her type; this is not a "test 'em and tell 'em" assessment.
Even though the MBTI fails to sort out a "commando type," it does provide some valuable information about the psychological frames a person uses in taking in information, making decisions, and interacting with the world. This knowledge is helpful in any setting where people want to improve their interactions with others, and also for helping individuals to find their own best path. Not only do organizations use the Indicator for team building and management development, it is a standard tool in career development and is also useful in education, psychological counseling, leadership training, and any setting that promotes personal growth.
Sponsor AnnouncementIntegral Mapping
with Mike R Jay, Master Business Coach
Do you have a map to work off of?
Right now, thousands of organizations around theworld are finalizing their strategic plans for
2005. Do you have one?
If not, join Mike Jay for 21 days and work through
an Integral Mapping System called Integrated
Strategic Intention System. Info on the program here:
When you finish this program you'll have your own
strategy map from which to navigate the territory
of your life, your work or a project or
The program is free.
Program begins Friday, October 8, 2004.
9:45 PM ET for 21 minutes each day.
Use This Link To Register
Day 1: Begins with Introduction Friday October 8, 2004
Days 2-11: October 8 - 22, 2004 Monday - Friday
Days 12-16: November 8 - 12, 2004 Monday - Friday
Days 17-21: November 22-26, 2004 Monday - Friday
Covered in Days 2-11: SWOT, Identity
Covered in Days 12-16: Strategic Intention
Covered in Days 17-21: Strategic Intention --> Purpose
These sessions will be recorded and placed with
our new coachevolution ISIS system debuting in
See you there!
http://www.b-coach.com/ "coach training for everyone"The Cost of Death
A woman's husband dies. He had $20,000US to his name. After everythingis done at the funeral home and cemetery, the widow tells her closest friendthat there is no money left.The friend says, "How can that be? You told me that he had $20,000 a fewdays before he died. How could you be broke already?"The widow said, "Well, the funeral cost me $6,000 and, of course, I had tomake the obligatory donation for the church and organist. That was $400. Ispent another $400 for the wake, food and drinks, you know. The rest wentfor the memorial stone."
The friend says, $13,200 for the memorial stone? My God how big is it?"
The widow replies, "Three carats."