Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program INTE 6930: Field Experience Report Kay Miller 6/4/2011

Introduction The Excellence in Leadership Program (ELP) is an annual program for emerging leaders at the University of Colorado, selected from all four CU campuses. ELP is organized by Employee Learning and Development at the University of Colorado and consists of monthly workshops with lectures by renowned speakers, round table discussions and other activities. In its current configuration, ELP is designed to serve as an honor and a networking opportunity for program fellows. However, as ELP organizers become more interested in strengthening the instructional potential of the program, we have begun to consider a new role for assessment. For the 2010-2011 ELP, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was introduced as a learning tool to help increase self-awareness and appreciation for differences among people, and to serve as a platform for discussion about the relationship between communication and leadership. My role at Employee Learning and Development (ELD) My field experience project was an internship at Employee Learning and Development (ELD) at the University of Colorado. ELD is a small team consisting of Janet Lowe (Director), David Sprouse (Learning Analyst), Erin Russell (Learning Coordinator), Mary Williams (Coordinator), and me (Learning Architect). Janet Lowe reports to Jill Pollock, the Senior Associate Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer. ELD has a number of projects under development at any given time, and I was encouraged to take part in as many projects as I felt comfortable with. I was not only encouraged to help with existing projects; I was urged to take on leadership, as well, designing presentations, developing multimedia programs and organizing an effort to introduce assessment as a learning tool in ELD's annual Excellence in Leadership Program.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

The Excellence in Leadership Program The Excellence in Leadership Program (ELP) is an annual program for emerging leaders at the University of Colorado, featuring workshops each month from August through April. ELP fellows are selected from faculty and staff of all four CU campuses. Monthly workshops consist of lectures by renowned speakers, round table discussions and other activities. From the ELP website: The Excellence in Leadership Program (ELP) seeks to develop high potential individuals as effective leaders who successfully can address the challenges of a dynamic university. Over the past decade over 300 university faculty and staff, successfully completed this program. The goals of the program are to: Develop a group of highly motivated and trained leaders throughout the university who are skilled at managing and leading change Focus attention on the critical role of leadership in achieving the universitys goals Enhance strategic leadership styles and capabilities within the university community Create a sense of community among leaders (www.cu.edu/eld/leadershipprograms) ELP is guided by a set of four competencies, or learning components (ELP organizers have chosen to stop using the term competencies to describe the intended learning outcomes of the program, and are using learning components instead). The learning components are not

objectives, strictly speaking; they are ideals and long term development goals that ELP alumni are encouraged to engage in. ELP learning components are: self awareness, development, building community, and change management. Subordinate to those components are skills such as conflict management, problem solving, communication, building trust, risk taking and vision (figure 1).There is a strong focus in ELP on the importance of emotional intelligence as a key factor in effective leadership, as opposed to reliance on executive power or other traditional hierarchies. ELP fellows and alumni are encouraged to foster personal and professional growth for themselves and people they work with. Uses and potential for assessment in ELP My supervisor for the internship, Janet Lowe, is interested in the potential for assessments as tools to enhance learning - a way to raise questions for further learning and development, not just to test knowledge. We had discussed introducing assessment to ELP that would underscore the self-awareness component of the program. One assessment-like activity was already in place for the first meeting of ELP in August: the Real Colors Personality Instrument. As its name suggests, Real Colors is a personality assessment, in which participants identify their personality type based on classes of characteristics or preferences. The objective of Real Colors, and its reason for inclusion in the Figure 1: ELP learning components

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

program, is to help participants to learn about themselves and their communication styles, and to develop an understanding of others communication and work preferences. The new assessment that would be introduced to ELP would follow the Real Colors activity and build on the same concepts of self-awareness and communication. I also intended to institute a coaching or mentoring program to continue skill development following the assessment. The coaching or mentoring program would allow a greater degree of personalization for each of the participants. Assessment options A variety of assessments were identified as possible options for further research: a 360 degree review by an organization such as Center for Creative Leadership or Development Dimensions International, a 360 degree review that would be developed in-house, the Clifton StrengthsFinder and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. 360 degree review A 360 degree review, an instrument that goes by other names as well, is an evaluation of an individual (often a manager or person in a leadership position) by coworkers or direct reports. A 360 degree review typically uses an extensive set of questions modified by a Likert scale to gauge the individual's performance at work or as a leader. Although the responses are subjective, the results of a well constructed 360 degree review are considered to be a reliable reflection of a leaders performance because of the number and anonymity of reviewers. One option was to use a professional 360 degree review developed by an organization such as the Center for Creative Leadership or Development Dimensions International. After some investigation into these organizations, it was found that the cost for such assessments was

beyond the FY2011 budget for ELP. The time required to launch a professionally facilitated assessment was beyond the scope of the program, as well. A 360 review that I would create especially for ELP was also considered. The instrument would be based on various resources, including a 360 degree review developed by Mark Augustine in Organizational and Employee Development at CU, a 360 degree review used at another company by a member of Employee Learning and Development, and a list of key leadership competencies published by the Canada Public Service Agency. A draft of the instrument created for ELP can be found in the Appendix. Several factors led to the abandonment of the 360 degree review. One is the time required to implement the assessment successfully. The full 360-degree feedback process is longer and more complicated than many people think. Any organization contemplating a project should be prepared for the fact that the results are not immediate (Ward, 1997). Because the new assessment would be introduced after the 2010-2011 ELP had already begun, and because we had identified that the assessment would need to take place no later than November, there was not adequate time for careful planning and implementation. Furthermore, 360 degree reviews at the University of Colorado had punitive connotations, having previously been used to evaluate faculty and staff that perform poorly. ELP fellows may have been reluctant to participate in the assessment because of this negative connotation. Clifton StrengthsFinder The CSF (Clifton StrenthsFinder) is an online measure of personal talent that identifies areas where an individuals greatest potential for building strengths exists. By identifying ones top themes of talent, the CSF provides a starting point in the identification of specific personal talents, and the related supporting materials help individuals discover how to build upon their

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

talents to develop strengths within their roles (Asplund, et al., 2009). The Clifton StrengthsFinder was considered as a way for ELP fellows to learn more about their personal and work-related strengths and develop them through coaching, self-study or other methods. Although the idea of using the StrengthsFinder instrument was rejected by CU's Chief Human Resources Officer due to concerns about metrics, I did try to incorporate the instrument's focus on leadership strengths for development, rather than weaknesses, into other aspects of the assessment project. Coaching program Though the coaching program is not an assessment option in its own right, it was considered as a follow-up to either the 360 degree review or the Clifton StrengthsFinder as a way to personalize the program and to help develop leadership skills following the assessment. We considered peer coaching, which consists of two or three managers rotating roles and sharing in a conversation, focused on a managers reflection and thinking about his/her management practices, leading to a refinement of performance (University Management Development Program, 2008). Due to the nature of peer coaching, participants might feel pressure to share potentially uncomfortable information with peers, especially if the coaching program involves the use of results from a 360 degree review. A one-to-one mentoring program was also considered, however, the prospect of arranging or imposing a mentoring program in the context of the ELP was rejected by several ELP organizers. Their concern was that mentoring is generally a long term relationship that evolves naturally between people who work closely with each other, and cannot effectively be externally imposed. There was also a degree of uncertainty that made a mentoring program unappealing. Employee Learning and Development does not have a pool of available mentors, and we were

unsure as to where appropriate candidates could be found. We also could not be sure of the level of commitment that could be expected from potential mentors, nor were we sure of what incentives we could offer that would encourage participation. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an effort to translate Jungian theory of personality types into something that could be used in everyday situations. Originally used primarily in one-on-one counseling, the Indicator has now been widely applied in team building, organization development, business management, education, training, and career counseling (Briggs, 1995). The MBTI is a highly subjective tool. Participants perform a self-assessment, and if participants disagree with the outcome of the questionnaire, they may choose to determine their own personality types (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 2010). There are differing scientific findings on the utility of the instrument (Pittenger, 1993), and it is not believed to be an effective way to evaluate performance or aptitude. For the purposes of ELP, however, we are not trying to evaluate fellows' performance or leadership abilities, but we are interested in opening discussion on how people behave individually or in groups, and how different styles of communication relate to leadership. For this, the MBTI may be a useful tool. The MBTI was chosen as the assessment tool that would be introduced to ELP. The University of Colorado has certified MBTI facilitators, so the instrument would be easy to organize and cost efficient, as well; it would also be a way to continue the discussion started with the Real Colors workshop, the outcomes of which are theoretically linked to the sixteen possible outcomes of the MBTI (Real Colors, 2005).

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

Implementing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator I contacted facilitators from Organizational and Employee Development, and made arrangements to have ELP fellows take the MBTI online. A workshop was scheduled for delivery and discussion of the results. Following a request, twenty-three out of the thirty fellows volunteered as participants. Of the twenty-three initial volunteers, eighteen participated in the scheduled event, and the event was considered a success by ELP organizers. The workshop involved a presentation in which the meaning of the different personality types was explained. The facilitators also discussed briefly how different personality types prefer to work and communicate. The individual results were then handed out and discussed, and facilitators were available to answer questions. In the days leading up to and following the workshop, I made suggestions to participants regarding additional reading material related to the MBTI and its uses in leadership. The recommended books1 were available to all participants at no cost through SkillSoft, Employee Learning and Development's learning management system. Participant survey and analysis of outcome ELP workshops typically have a high attendance rate. However, the MBTI workshop was an addition to the scheduled ELP programs, and ELP organizers expressed surprise that participation was so high for an extracurricular event. To understand the popularity of the MBTI, and to see if and how participants were using information from the workshop and recommended reading material, I created a brief survey in SurveyMonkey and sent it to the participants.
1 The recommended books were: Myers, Isabel Briggs and Myers Peter B. (1995). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Types. DaviesBlack Publishing.
Krebs Hirsh, S. & Kise, J. A. G. (2006). Work it out: using personality type to improve team performance, revised edition. Davies-Black Publishing.

The response to the survey was small; there were eight respondents in all to the survey, but only six answered beyond the first question. ELP surveys are voluntary, and the response rate is typically low. Of those that responded, most reported that they are not using information from the workshop or readings in any significant way.

Survey questions and results Question Number 1 Question Have you applied any of the info learned in the MBTI workshop in your work? If you answered yes to the previous question, what information have you applied? (Please give a short description of the circumstances) Yes 3 No 5 Notes

The MBTI was presented by Judith Albino at our SOP faculty retreat. We compared our average faculty responses to our average student responses and had a breakout of how that might impact our teaching approaches. I have used this information with some training we employed in my department - similar but a bit different - we are learning each others colors - etc.

Has the MBTI workshop led to a change in your interactions with coworkers? (Please describe)

Some, it has given me a better understanding of the differences between personalities and the need to adjust my leadership style depending on the person I am dealing with. No When people I manage come to me to discuss personnel issues, I will ask them to think of their MBTI result and how that impacts their perception of the situation

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

Yes - greater appreciation for people's differences. It hasnt 4 What could be added to the workshop that would make it more effective for you? I was pleased with it, as is. (this person answered no to questions 1 and 3) I think the idea of comparing general faculty to general student traits might make an interesting discussion for all. Nothing I think the workshops involve too much lecturing at the audience. At times this is effective, but for the most part a greater degree of engaged problem solving would be very useful. 5 Have you read any of the recommended Myers-Briggs resources in Books24x7? If you have read some of the recommended books, did you find them useful? If you have not read any of the recommended books, do you intend to? Which books or resources would you recommend to other people who are interested in using MyersBriggs at work? Have you considered asking your direct reports to take the MBTI? 3 3 2 4

Not sure - it's tough to fit this kind of resource into the day.

To me, the most salient outcome of the survey above is the five to three ratio of participants who answered no to question #1: Have you applied any of the info learned in the MBTI workshop in your work? While there are follow-up questions for those who responded

yes, the survey did not account for no responses to question #1, so the no respondents do not have the opportunity to explain their reasons. Four of the six respondents to question #5 say they have not read any of the recommended books. It is understood that many of our ELP fellows may not have much time to devote to reading books recommended in the program. The books are considered optional, but may be helpful to those with a strong interest in developing their leadership knowledge and skills. However, the books were meant to supplement the MBTI workshop, which I knew from the outset would not include resources relevant to leadership, due to facilitators' lack of expertise in leadership. Conclusion Because of the success of the MBTI workshop it will continue to be offered in the future. Starting in 2011, Employee Learning and Development will have more control over the content of the MBTI workshop, as our Learning Coordinator is undergoing training to become a facilitator. We will be able to make the workshop more relevant to leadership and design the workshop so that it involves more activity and reduce the emphasis on lecture. The intent of the MBTI in the context of the Excellence in Leadership Program was to be a platform for developing self-awareness and an appreciation for differences among people. It is also a platform for discussion of communication styles and the relationship of communication to leadership. Further analysis is needed to determine whether the MBTI workshop lived up to the intent. ELP organizers do not normally conduct analyses of the program. Officially, there are no learning objectives for ELP, and no established ways of determining whether the learning components are being met. ELP is considered an honor and a networking opportunity for fellows, and until recently learning was held to be a secondary feature of the program. Some ELP

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

organizers believe that there can and should be means of evaluating learning according to the learning components of the program. There are other personnel involved in planning and funding the ELP who feel that the learning components are secondary and that the program should remain primarily a showcase for university leaders. Challenging the status quo by shifting the focus to learning may not be met with enthusiasm from all parties. Nevertheless, an analysis of the current program is not out of order, and the results of an analysis may support the case of those in favor of ELP becoming first and foremost a learning program. My plan for next years ELP is to do a thorough needs analysis: find out what parts of the program are engaging and useful to fellows when they leave the workshops and why. The voluntary surveys that we normally email to ELP fellows after workshops are insufficient because of the low response rate. Thus, I will consider alternative methods of getting participant evaluations, such as using paper evaluations at the in-person meetings (which typically have a high attendance rate), or a clicker system if possible. I will also look for areas where the program is missing opportunities for interaction among participants. In other words, are they sitting through a lecture when they could be participating in an activity such as a game, simulation or a discussion? Online activities may also become a part of ELP in the future, so that learning, networking and idea sharing can continue between workshops. An online ELP community would also allow program alumni to continue learning with guidance from program organizers, as well as help to mentor new fellows. ELP has already started a Linked In group for fellows and interested individuals in the CU community. ELP organizers are initiating discussions by contributing at least once per week. The group now has over sixty members, but so far few outside Employee Learning and Development have contributed to discussions. The Linked In

group is less than one month old at the time of writing and ELP is on hiatus for the summer, so participation is expected to be low at this time. Over the course of the program, however, I will analyze who is using the Linked In group, how often they use it, what discussion topics get the most response and in what ways people respond (are they liking comments, making comments, sharing relevant articles, starting new discussion threads, and so on). Ill also investigate whether Linked In is the best way to use the Web for collaborative learning with this group, or whether another option, such as a members only section of the ELD website, might be preferable.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator as a Learning Device in a University Leadership Program

References Asplund, J., Lopez, S. J., Hodges, T., & Harter, J. (2009).The Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0 Technical Report: Development and Validation (Updated March 2009) The Gallop Organization: Washington, D.C. Briggs Myers, I. & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Davies-Black Publishing: Mountain View, CA. Leadership Programs. Retrieved May 30, 2011 from https://www.cu.edu/content/leadershipprograms Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).(2010). Organizational and Employee Development, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Peer Coaching Program. (2008). University Management Development Program. Unpublished manuscript. Pittenger, D.J. (1993). The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63, 467-488. Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths-based Leadership. Gallup Press: New York, NY. Real Colors: Adult Version English. (2005). Phoenix, AZ: National Curriculum & Training Institute, Inc. Ward, P. (1997). 360-degree feedback. CIPD Enterprises: London, UK.

Appendix 360 Review questions for Direct Reports Always 5 Usually 4 Often 3 Sometimes 2 Seldom 1 Never N/A Inspires trust in himself/herself {OR: Inspires trust among colleagues} Is a strong and effective leader in her/his department Is receptive to feedback, both positive and negative Acts in alignment with CUs mission to serve through leadership in high-quality education, public service, advancement of research, and state-of-the-art health care

Supports excellence by modeling high standards and high quality in his/her own work Effectively manages change

Encourages collaboration on projects when appropriate Makes swift but reasonable decisions Considers many solutions to problems Listens to suggestions from others Handles stressful situations calmly and rationally Mediates conflicts among colleagues fairly and impartially

Values my opinions and ideas Encourages me to use my strengths at work Demonstrates sensitivity to cultural differences, experiences, and beliefs Lets me know what is expected of me at work Keeps me informed of key issues and/or initiatives that may impact my department Encourages me to go beyond my current level of skill and expertise Supports my efforts to improve my level of skill and expertise