Coaching, feedback and behavioural tools - MBTI

So what tool or method do you use for your coaching practice or other organisational and improvement work?

Over my career I've been on the receiving end of a number and also tried a variety with different clients.  I've ended up using MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) as my main method for helping others - to help themselves. My main reason is this tool is well evidenced, has been in place for decades and is used successfully in many countries. The evidence base is important for me as I believe it is necessary for healthcare to demonstrate the use of evidence-based techniques and tools.  The techniques can't be administered or debriefed unless you've been accreditated which means there is a consistent standard world-wide.

Other reasons I prefer MBTI:

• it is more than a one-off
• it can be scaled from individual through the team and organisation
• it works well to support change processes
• the evidence base, being huge, allows greater depth of understanding
• it is common enough that it provides a "language" for staff to use in times of difficulty

Do you know of or use other behavioural techniques which have an evidence base similar to MBTI and can also be scaled up in their use?

Disseminating guidelines using MBTI Style

One of the eternal difficulties in the dissemination and application of clinical evidence is what I believe to be the " style gap".

Either they are researched and written so generically it is difficult for any individual or team to see how they apply to them. Or they are written so specifically that individuals and teams are so constrained to the detail and working out how they apply to themselves, they don't implement.

Different groups and organisations have developed their own ways round this problems. At a National or Regional level, boards and groups develop guidelines that are generic and then disseminate with a covering letter urging local adaptation of these guidelines. They know there will need to be local differences and contexts taken into account so they acknowledge this. This raises some questions for me:

• to what extent does turning the generic into the specific mean the intended benefits remain?
• are there different bits that can be adapted in different ways? Do the authors suggest how different bits can be adapted?
• what are the systemic links with other pathways, clinical areas etc that need to be taken into account?
• what are the contextual variables that are necessary for the generic guideline to be implemented (things like resources)?
• Where to start? Something practical?

For those guidelines which are so specific as to be overwhelming

• how do all these details scale up into themes and topics?
• what are the patterns and links to systems that will be useful to know about?
• which if the details are most important? Which ones can be left out and the main benefits are still reached?
• is there a specific order to implementation?
• how to the parts integrate with other systems like IT and HR?

I don't know the solution to this. What I do know is that many clinical and process guidelines are written in the MBTI (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) N/Intuitive style. This is the big picture, system and pattern way of seeing things. In contrast many of those required to implement these guidelines are more comfortable working with details (MBTI S/Sensing) and make sense easier of instructions if they are practical and specific. Sometimes the reverse is true - S's develop guidelines for N's to implement.

All the other parts of the MBTI styles could be a factor in the adoption of messages that change personal behaviour.

Perhaps one way round this is to use dissemination processes and content in a way which best suits the style of the potential adopters rather than the comfort of the authors.

There's no such thing as resistance to change

It took me a while to work it out but after I did I was more able to help the process of implementing changes within teams and in enabling individuals to find new ways of working. What I discovered was it was not the other person who was resistant to change, but rather it was me who was labelling them as resistant. This revelation occurred one day during a debate about sustaining changes and "the resistant person" explained that he was actually sustaining what he thought was a better practice than the one being proposed. Then it dawned on me. Of course, he doesn't think he is resistant to change - it is me that thinks he is. (The whole paradox about sustainability we'll leave or another blog post!)

In my experience I encounter more of what I perceive to be resistance when I am proposing that someone take on an existing idea. It is less of an issue when they have the opportunity to be innovative and creative and can come up with something that is their own idea. There is something about buy in and commitment in the process. So I've been working for some time to come up with some of the "how" for this connection, commitment, buy in, communication - whatever you want to call it, process. So often I find high level management type language is used to explain what is happening but little is said about how to then fix the problem.

What I find helps for me is to use the concept of learning styles or personal preferences. The more I understand about the individual's personal preferences and the way they prefer to take on new behaviours, then more I am able to find a way to assist them in adopting this proposed new change. There are many different learning style frameworks. I use Honey & Muford's LSI Instrument and also the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and methods to help me understand the person I am working with.

Not only do these instruments help me understand, they also provide ideas on how communication materials need to be different for different styles. For instance, a more theorist style will require detailed materials providing the facts behind the business case and what may be useful is an electronic copy of the document with hyperlinks to other sites which can provide background infomration. In contrast, a pragmatist may require a single sheet of paper, folded in a clever way so that it is designed like a small book and in this booklet is all the information required, in bullet point form, including some space for them to make a few notes as they go. They should also be able to open up the booklet, photocopy it for someone else and then fold it up again.

It sounds like a mission to have to find out the types of people you're working with, their styles and preferences and then to design materials to and interventions to suit them. In my experience, I know of no other way to appropriately help them take on existing knowledge in a helpful and meaningful way.

Creative Commons 2008 Sarah Fraser Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derviative