My standpoint has been made pretty clear on assessment tools in previous posts: safe to say that to date I’ve not been a fan. My own philosophy is that each human being is unique and that good coaching would enable the coach to form a picture of some of the pertinent traits that people have, through the responses to questions and picking up on the “unsaid”, that become evident within a coaching conversation. With experience, a coach would be able to draw certain conclusions about personality and these would be no more or less likely to be accurate than any assessment tool could provide. These conclusions, like the MBTI® profiles, would have to be tested with the client for “validity” and “reliability” i.e. were they accurate and in what circumstances.

And so to MBTI®.

I am lucky enough to work closely with a number of great coaches, all of who have their own personal coaching style. We get to work with great businesses in the field of coach education. Two colleagues that I worked with recently, lead two separate groups of delegates through their MBTI® profiles, which as accredited practitioners, they were licensed to do. The walk-through and practical nature of the exercises that accompanied it, coupled with insights from the MBTI® profiles were a huge success with the delegates, who loved discussing their own profiles, that of other team members and how to use this information to help them improve performance and relate better to people around them …. both at work and home !!

This got me reflecting further on assessment and the MBTI® in particular. It also made me aware of a pit-fall that I think I have made when assessing whether it may be a resource that I might use in the future (following appropriate training of course).

A personal view on MBTI®: a really sophisticated tool that is clearly based in evidence from research, from the work of the psychologist Jung. It is also proven to be “reliable” and “valid” according to the research completed on it. That bit really appeals to me – based firmly in the science. That I get !

(get more information here: www.myersbriggs.org)

However, combining factors to produce profiles that put people into one of 16 boxes – even within the caveat of a “preference” - is where our paths diverge.

Acknowledging the pre-amble about our ability to use different preferences, my view has been that MBTI® can be a blunt tool that does not take into account the limitless variations and subtleties of human beings. If we are able to move across different preferences and operate in different styles, what’s the point for us as coaches, of measuring our preferred profile? The ever-shifting nature of presented-personality would make attempts at measuring it pointless.

And yet … it dawned on me that whilst that is how I might feel about MBTI® and other such tools, there was no denying the evidence. Cries from delegates of, “Wow! That is soooo me!” when reading their own profiles, swiftly followed by “So that’s why X drives me crazy when they do Y” in recognition of how certain people operated and may have clashed with their own preferences, was without doubt very powerful …

… and therein lies my mistake: It’s not about me, stupid !

If this tool, robustly researched and with a fine pedigree of rigorous testing by independent academics, helps the client, then perhaps it is an additional tool worth employing. There is little doubt over it’s ability to engage clients and if it prompts reflectivity then surely that is a good thing … as long as they just don’t re-define themselves as residing in a rigid box, rather than remaining a complex and intriguing human being.

User, convert or sceptic?  Let me know. 

 ... Do you formally assess the clients you work with?

The use of assessment tools in coaching was always going to be an issue that I would resist, for several (quite!) well considered reasons. These include: personal philosophy of human beings; experience of having seen assessment tools regularly used indiscriminately; certain doubts about their efficacy and finally, although I am accredited in one assessment tool (Hay Group Emotional Competency Inventory® (ECI)) a lack of accreditation and/or experience in administering these tools effectively.

My own perspective of the clients that I work with is that they are, first and foremost, people and therefore complex beings.  Although it could be perceived as a highly selective approach, my philosophy of people that I carry into my coaching, has its roots in several of the major psychotherapeutic schools: from person-centred theory:

“no two persons are ever alike and … human personality is so complex that no diagnostic labelling of a person can ever be fully justified” (Thorne, 2002 p.134) 

I had also witnessed assessment tools being used inappropriately or time not being given for fully supportive feedback. Clients also have a tendency to focus only on the negative elements of any tool despite the best efforts to guide them to review broader themes and tend to begin by examining the detail. All of these reinforced for me, the idea that rather than use them badly, I would rather not use assessment tools at all. 

MBTI®, Insights ® and others seem to be well researched, grounded in psychological theory and have a rigorous accreditation programme. But the results can and do result in some of my experience in people then ending up with a label that in shorthand says "I'm a blue" or "I'm INTJ". As a coach the subtler nuanaces of the client that sits in front of me could be lost or blurred for both of us, making coaching less effective.

So what tools do I use early in coaching conversations? Well I have used a range of approaches:

Life chapters - encouraging the client to look at their life as a series of chapters in a book. Overview the chapters that they feel are the most relevant to the goals they are seeking to achieve, including the chapter that they are currently in.

Career history - to spot themes and trends in the rationale or circumstances that have lead someone to where they are currently

360 assessment - giving a rounded view of how the client and others see them and using this as a tool for debate, reflection and action planning.

Aspirations vs reality - a comparison of ideal world vs real world

I would be really interested in your views on assessment and tools that you use in the early stages of a coaching relationship.

I am often asked by organisations to observe their coaches in action and provide feedback on their performance.

My first question when presented with such a request is, “Why me?” !

The second question, which follows pretty quickly, is: “What do you want the feedback to achieve?” Despite a variation in how this is presented, the common factor is that companies are looking for coaches to further their learning and skills and by applying this to their role, improve their coaching performance.

Fine aspirations and certainly providing feedback after observation will produce some improvement. Will such an approach provide the reflection necessary for sustainable change to occur? I’m less confident about that. Indeed meta-reflection … the ability to take TWO steps back, as I refer to it … would surely produce insights that an approach of downloading feedback (telling!), is at odds with a non-directive coaching approach. The irony is certainly not lost on me.

As a result of observing many coaching conversations I have created a methodology that those of you involved in coaching or coach education may find useful when reflecting on a coaching conversation: The Coaching Observation Matrix. Typically when trying to provide performance feedback, conversations are located squarely in Boxes 1 and 3.

If you want to facilitate learning, I suggest operating from Boxes 2 and 4.