Today’s article is a guest post from self-described HR Assistant and wanna-be blogger Stephanie Andrews. She’s new to the HR blog thing and still trying to find her voice. Help her out and give her some feedback in the comments section.
We see them all the time: Professional development opportunities, training seminars, and certifications for Meyers-Briggs, Personality Dimension Facilitation, or Fluffy Bunny Petting for Performance Reviews.
Now, I’m not disputing that these resources aren’t interesting, intriguing, and sometimes useful, but I can’t help but wonder once you’ve left the seminar/training session/intergalactic space module: Where’s the real world application?
From my (admittedly limited) experience in HR, but my (pushing 30-years) experience in dealing with people in general, I feel that you can either figure people out right away, or you can’t.
Knowing that the employee in your office who is in tears over a department conflict is an ENFJ and their supervisor is an INTJ isn’t going to fix the situation, but it may make you reconsider your P (perception) of the department dynamics in general. (Or even C – your career choice.)
Where is the ROI?
Since these programs can be hundreds, if not thousands of dollars at the cost of the employer, where is the ROI?
In this age of the recession roller coaster, and with HR constantly “fighting for a seat at the executive table” (another phrase of nausea-inducing HR martyrdom), why would HR professionals spend their time and money on these courses?
I feel that personality training is along the same lines as having the innate ability to tell an honest person from a dishonest one, or to know at first handshake that you’re about to get screwed over by a salesman.
Do I have a solution if you’re not naturally intuitive about people? Not really, since you have it or you don’t. Do I recommend that you reach out to other professionals to bounce ideas and discuss situations? I sure do.
An hour of face time at the cost of a cup of coffee has taught me more than many of these expensive personality resources, and provided me with real-life tools to better do my job.
What have been your experiences in these personality-related training courses? Did you get bang for your buck, or was it just a time suck?
Stephanie Andrews is the HR Assistant and resident social media guru for the Town of Banff in Alberta, Canada. Stephanie writes at Cosmic Noodles about life in the mountains, staying sane while working in HR, and her love of bad reality TV. She likes dirty martinis and dirtier jokes, so if you have one you can connect with her on LinkedIn.
I like the example you give in the beginning of your post, mentioning the Jungian types. It hits on the exact problem people have in general, and it is this: they expect people to deal with their traits.
I’ve taken several personality measures, and I look at them as an opportunity to learn more about myself and how to overcome some of the (less desirable) traits about me. I have ADD, but I would *never* expect an employer or my co-workers to deal with me when I get slightly hyperactive or easily frustrated. Instead, I recognize my propensity to get frustrated and work to mitigate factors that produce the frustration.
The bottom line is that people are unwilling (or flat out unable) to believe they may have undesirable traits, and approach life with a “take me or leave me” attitude. Employers will opt to leave you!
Hi Stephanie…good thoughts about ROI on training. Sadly, I’m in the most-are-a-waste-of-time camp. I think there are a lot of people who make money being Captain Obvious…but they have cool slides.
Welcome to the blogging world. And your profile cracks me up…who can go wrong with a person who likes dirty martinis and dirtier jokes? LOL…great one.
Stephanie welcome and nice article. It always seems strange when people “toodle off” to these events without first understanding why they go there and more importantly how they will implement! Its all got to be part of the bigger picture strategy!!
I’m commenting from the perspective of someone who works with teams and team leaders to help them do things better. I’ve trained supervisors at all levels for more than 25 years.
I don’t know whether it makes sense for HR people to take the courses you describe. But I do know that giving people a common framework to discuss work issues, especially the people-drenched ones, can yield big benefits.
When I did train-the-trainer programs for the supervisory skills training, we always included a model on social styles instruments. I suggested that the trainers pick one of the common ones. Some of those (DiSC, eg) have specific instruments and trainer certification. Others (Platinum Rule, eg) can be understood through a book. In either case, they can provide the supervisors being trained with a way to frame their understanding of people and a common language to discuss people issues.
I make three suggestions based on my experience.
Ease of use trumps finely-tuned accuracy. Myers-Briggs is great if you want to understand yourself and that is most likely to happen if you have a trained person doing the administration and interpretation. But it’s too complex for a frontline supervisor to use in the hurly-burly of work. A simpler (two dimensions/four styles) system works better.
Not everyone needs this kind of framework for understanding others. But some do. Even if you can get a good sense of a person over a cup of coffee and articulate your understanding in documentation if necessary, it doesn’t mean that everyone else has the same aptitude or skills.
For a working boss, the big advantage of using a social styles instrument is that he or she increases the odds of getting a good outcome on the first try.
For teams and companies, the big advantage of using a common instrument is that it provides common tools for diagnosing situations and common language for discussing them.
@Wally – Do you think knowing someone’s “personality type” really helps you interact with and manage them more effectively? At the end of the day, isn’t it really about acting like an adult, and treating the people you interact with like adults, too?
Oh I have so many opinions on this topic it could fill a book. I think there is merit for each side of the discussion — personality-based products can either be very useful OR snakeoil.
To be concise (and somewhat blunt), I find the self-awareness it brings ["this is how I act"] to be priceless and the training courses ["people fit into one of these four boxes"] to be useless.
I do think that if you are not naturally intuitive about other people… you can become that way if you so wish.
@Chris – I think it’s more. One can be smart, mature, act professional and considerate yet still experience interpersonal conflicts and not understand why or how to address them.
@Eva – Wouldn’t those issues be better handled through mentoring and coaching around each specific situation? Context is important. Can a blanket training really help here?
Thanks all for the great feedback.
This subject is a fine line between interesting self discovery (also achieved from the monthly Cosmo quiz), and practical real-life application.
@Frank, thanks for the kudos, and I wish I was able to get paid by being Captain Obvious, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. Maybe if I upped the martini intake it would help.
:)
Hi Stephanie, you have some great points in your blog. I agree that you can’t have a quick fix for possible systemic issues with an organization. Instead, I agree face to face interaction and discussion is much more appropriate and as you said a coffee/donut and a half an hour of one on one can go a long way in coming to some sort of resolution or ongoing discussions.
My 2 cents
Gina
@Chris – I do think mentoring/coaching is better and I’m generally not a fan of events and trainings, but everyone learns in a different way. Sometimes one can get more from a training or a book than a coaching or mentoring session. And in terms of ROI, the cost is lower while more people are exposed to the take-aways. Of course, the success of that depends on what is being presented, by whom, and how. If you can’t tie the session to a real-life application, either the attendee, the presenter, and/or the organizer of the event is not doing their part.
Context IS crucial, but sometimes knowing the fundamentals is enough to then tailor that info to your particular situation. Often we need help with that which is where the coach/mentor really has value. I also think it doesn’t always make sense to make the investment in coaching if a baseline of awareness is not there.