Employing assessments to assist individuals in their personal and professional development is an important educational strategy.
Using quizzes and models based on cute animals or other metaphorical objects is not only unprofessional, it’s dangerous.
In the quest to simplify the concept of personal style or typology, well-meaning (but ignorant) individuals have created all kinds of models that are a real disservice to their participants. To my horror, just the other day, I witnessed an HR person call a participant a “woodpecker.”
These individuals honestly believe, somehow, that labeling a person with the name of an animal species can help him or her understand the complex concept of personal style.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
With 30 years of experience and several million users, the people at CRG can cite myriad examples of damage done by these “darling” assessments. Participants become confused and are fed false information about the nature of personal style and the vital dynamics surrounding the concept.
Participants take the misleading information as truth, then go on to lead their lives in frustration.
- Many blame themselves for their lack of satisfaction in life because, after all, they are a woodpecker, so they had better act like one.
- Or they feel betrayed by the assessment process and vow never again to engage in another assessment.
The assessment process must always be taken seriously. We are dealing with people’s lives here.
I have heard many excuses from those who use animal characters or metaphoric approaches.
- It makes it more fun or easier to understand.
Maybe more fun for the facilitator, but not the participant. Being a woodpecker does not mean anything except to the brilliant mind that came up with the notion.
- I created this model on a napkin at lunch today, so people could afford it.
That puts a price on the truth.
- It gets them started on the concept; they can use a real assessment later.
What? That simply confuses them. Using more than one model always does.
- I wanted to save money by not purchasing a validated tool.
This is obviously either a question of ethics or the individual is an amateur.
- I have only 30 minutes, so I did not want to go too deep.
Lack of information is more dangerous than no information.
We want individuals to take the development process seriously.
How can you be serious when dealing with cute animals? They trivialize the concept of personal style, to a point where style is not seen as a valuable study.
The challenge of all these cute models is that research reveals the majority of individuals are combinations of the various dimensions (animals). In fact, less than 15% of the population have preferences that represent a single animal or dimension. Does that make me a Woodpus or an Octopecker?
After conducting close to 1000 seminars on the topic, I have lost track of the countless individuals who come up to me after our sessions on personal style to thank me for releasing them from all the previous junk—cute-but-shallow assessments—to which they had been exposed.
They make statements like, “Finally—an assessment and model that acknowledges my diverse nature and that does not pigeonhole me!” Or, they express a lot of anger toward previous experiences that they can now, at long last, let go.
Using metaphors requires that the participants memorize all the qualities that the originator attributed to the animals in his or her assessment—and that is simply not practical.
The best thing we can do as professionals is never be drawn into the deception that it’s okay to use those types of approaches. It doesn’t matter what your time or budget restraints might be. DON’T succumb to this temptation!
Would you place your family in an automobile with no brakes because you did not have the time or money to fix them? Of course not! So don’t put people’s mental or emotional states in jeopardy by using cute instead of valid professional approaches.
Please, never compromise your ethical values. There are many quality assessment options. You should never have to use substandard methods.
Consider the following CRG resources, both for you personally and for your clients and/or team.
|
