We must beware of changing our frameworks into boxes

I am not fond of psychometric testing. Not because I don’t think these tests have value, but because I have seen how the wrong application of these tests do more harm than good. There is nothing as off-putting (is this a good word for “grillerig”?) as a team building programme where people do a DISC profiling in the morning and are then required to act according to their profiles throughout the day. And many facilitators do this with DISC, MBTI, Belbin – you name it. We should also beware of doing this with our frameworks – especially with the Enneagram and Mind the Gap.

We should remember that any psychological framework is just a framework – or in other words – a way of looking at a person. The depth and complexity and beauty of a human being can never be fully described by any single framework – no matter how scientifically and statistically accredited the instrument you are using. This is why psychologists (the ones who actually like and use psychometrics) do a whole battery of tests and also combine those results with the qualitative outcomes of discussions, pictures and stories told by the client. To the credit of the psychometric movement, I must say that there are some pretty impressive instruments out there. In fact, any instrument that has been accredited by the HPCSA (Health Professions Council of South Africa) has survived some rigorous research and scrutiny. Still such an instrument (when used alone) only gives a one-dimensional picture and still such an instrument can cause harm when used and debriefed by someone who doesn’t acknowledge the complexities and dilemmas accompanying psychometric testing.

To come back to the Enneagram and the Generational framework: We should be careful of not stepping into the trap I mentioned above. I personally think we are making too much out of both these frameworks. Of course they have value. Of course business leaders should understand that a new generation is on its way, but once you move from the general to the specific (the individual that sits in the office next door) it becomes dangerous to simply think of the Genx Type 9 with the black shirt (There’s been some of this kind of language used in our own internal conversations and it is just as “grillerig” as in a team building). We are moving into a connection economy. The world of relationships. The world of valuing people for who they are. The world of story and experience. We shouldn’t dilute this message by telling our generational story in such a way that people start pre-judging individuals because of their age or their Enneagram Type.

The Enneagram and the Mind the Gap Value Sets do give an interesting input into a team conversation where individuals get to know each other. It actually just starts the conversation and leaves it up to the individual and the group to mould the story into their own stories. They should actually be encouraged to say where they disagree with the frameworks as this will shed even more light on the process of understanding each other. I’m not saying throw it away, I’m just saying that we should be careful of not over-applying these two frameworks to all contexts and situations.

There’s a saying that doesn’t apply to us yet, but we should prevent it from applying to us at all cost: “He who is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.