Nobody likes to be typecast. Actors bemoan the limitations it puts on their careers. “I can’t get anything but light comedy parts. No one takes me seriously as an actor.” The same thing happens at work. “He’s a Type “A” personality.” “She’s an introvert.” “He’s just not a people person.” Such stereotyping can, of course, become an obstacle to our advancement at work. But, perhaps even more debilitating is the way we type ourselves. Some leadership training actually encourages this. Every one of us has taken a class called, “What is your leadership style?” or some variation of that. At the beginning of the workshop, you complete a questionnaire that explains that you are: amiable, assertive, extroverted, introverted, deliberate, adventurous, etc., etc.
These instruments are called: type indicators, leadership style measurements, personality profiles, social engagement measures, and so on. Some of these instruments have a lot more credibility than others. Some, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or the FIRO-b have mountains of research behind them and can provide insights into oneself that often are useful. Others are little more than discussion starters invented by the facilitator of the workshop. Used as intended and carefully facilitated, they can cause you to think about your habits and challenges in new, creative ways, but it is also very easy to misuse them. I’ve seen workshops in which people wore signs with their four-letter “type” hanging around their neck. Other participants were then encouraged to respond to them according to some formula for that specific “type.” Wow! Some companies use these instruments to staff teams. They reason that a team with multiple types may be more effective, more balanced. Some companies even try to use them in the hiring process, a practice that has encountered legal challenges.
Leadership Training Should Caution Using Labels
Leadership training that emphasizes the increased self-awareness that these instruments can provide may be valuable but it is very important to use caution. Despite the disclaimers that most instruments offer (“There is no preferred style. No one type is better than another.”), many organizational leaders do not see it that way. One such example is often apparent with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Most senior executives of major American companies are ENTJ’s (Extraverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging). The description of an ENTJ is, “ENTJ’s are logical, organized, structured, objective, and decisive about what they view as conceptually valid.” Compare that description with, “ISTJ’s (Introverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging) are thorough, painstaking, systematic, hard-working, and careful with detail [1].
Which one do you think is the “holy grail” in corporate America? Even though the intent of these instruments is good and the purpose of including them in leadership training is to make the point that different types of people can work together successfully, there is certainly a tendency to over interpret the results. You can bet that the “thorough, painstaking, systematic, hard-working, and careful with detail” ISTJ will end up with the grunt jobs. “Let Sally take care of all the travel arrangements. She likes the detail work.” And more to the point, Sally may begin to think of herself in that way. “I’m not really suited to the higher level, analytical work.”
Have you ever had a song get stuck in your head? I’ve heard these called “ear worms.” No matter how hard I try, that little tune keeps going round and round and round. These kinds of thoughts can be implanted in leadership training as well. Thoughts like, “I’m not good with analytical work,” can become a parasitic thought that can be hard to shake. It can lead to an inability to change, adapt and grow. If that is just the way I am, there’s no point in trying. “I’ll just take care of the details and let someone else do the real thinking.”
I am not suggesting that some people are not better suited to certain kinds of work. That is often the case. It can also be very constructive to design tasks so that they capitalize on people’s strengths. It can also be valuable to discover that a team has a lack of certain kinds of attributes. This kind of knowledge allows us to make changes, redesign, learn new things, etc. But, it needs to be done with considerable care. Most of the time, it is better to assume the best and give people a chance to live up to it.
There is considerable evidence that expectations influence behavior. We all have expectations about people (and ourselves) and we all communicate those expectations to those around us. Often, this happens at a very low level of awareness in very subtle ways, like the teachers in Rosenthal’s famous experiment with school children [2].
Train Leaders to Avoid Stereotypes
So, this phenomenon is always going to be a part of the workplace. Many leaders try to capitalize on it by making their positive expectations explicit in the hope that the team’s performance will match the expectation. In truth, most of these attempts do not amount to much. What seems to be the most effective is to stay away from labels and assumptions and to focus on actions, behavior. Leadership training that helps participants learn communication tools that are more behavioral will strengthen the leader’s ability to minimize the negative effects of stereotypes and unnecessary labeling [3].
The power of expectations is undoubtedly great but trying to intentionally create a “Pygmalion” effect will probably not have much impact by itself. Such positive expectations need to be paired with careful planning and thorough leadership training. What does seem imprudent is to introduce a set of labels that can be easily misinterpreted and misused. Used out of context the “typing” that is often a result of many psychological or leadership instruments can do more harm than good.
[1] Krebs Hirsh, Sandra. and Kummerow, Jean M. Introduction to Type in Organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990.
[2] Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[3] Active Listening. A method of listening where you reflect back your understanding of what a person says to you. This is meant to confirm to them that you understood their message, and to give them a chance to correct you if you don’t. More importantly, however, this communicates your acceptance of the person’s thoughts and emotions. (This concept/skill was created by Carl Rogers, world-famous psychologist and popularized by Dr. Thomas Gordon.) I-Messages. An I-Message is a skill for influencing others to change behavior that somehow interferes with your ability to meet your needs. It’s a non-blameful, non-judgmental description of the unacceptable behavior, how it affects you and how it makes you feel. Other people will be much more likely to change their unacceptable behavior. (This skill was created by Dr. Thomas Gordon in 1962.)