{"id":1077,"date":"2011-10-15T11:15:52","date_gmt":"2011-10-15T11:15:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=1077"},"modified":"2011-10-15T11:15:52","modified_gmt":"2011-10-15T11:15:52","slug":"the-devil-and-the-detail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=1077","title":{"rendered":"The Devil and the Detail"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>There are two\u00a0directions from which we\u00a0can approach an improvement challenge.\u00a0From the\u00a0bottom up – starting with the real\u00a0details and distilling the principle later; and\u00a0from the top down\u00a0– starting\u00a0with the conceptual principle and doing the detail later.\u00a0 Neither is better than the other – both are needed.<\/p>\n

As individuals we have an innate preference for real detail or conceptual principle –\u00a0and\u00a0our\u00a0preference is manifest by\u00a0the way we think, talk and behave –\u00a0it is part of our\u00a0personality<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0It is\u00a0useful to have insight into our own personality and to recognise that\u00a0when other people approach a problem in a\u00a0different way then we\u00a0may experience a difference of opinion, a conflict of styles, and possibly arguments.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

One very well established model of personality type\u00a0was proposed by\u00a0Carl Gustav Jung who was a psychologist and who approached the subject from the\u00a0perspective of understanding psychological “illness”.\u00a0 Jung’s\u00a0“Psychological Types<\/em>” was used as the foundation of the life-work\u00a0of\u00a0Isabel Briggs Myers who was not a psychologist and who was looking from the direction of understanding psychological “normality”. In her book Gifts Differing – Understanding Personality Type\u00a0(ISBN 978-0891-060741<\/em>)\u00a0she demonstrates using empirical data that there is not one normal or ideal type that we are all\u00a0deviate from – rather that there\u00a0is a set of stable types that each represents a “different gift”. By this she means that different personality types are suited to different\u00a0tasks\u00a0and when the type resonantes with the task it\u00a0results in high-performance\u00a0and is\u00a0seen an asset or “strength” and when it does not it results in low performance and is seen as a liability or “weakness”.<\/p>\n

One of the multiple dimensions\u00a0of the Jungian\u00a0and Myers-Briggs personality type model\u00a0is the S<\/strong>ensor – iN<\/strong>tuitor dimension the S-N<\/strong> dimension. This dimension\u00a0represents\u00a0where we hold our reference model<\/em>\u00a0that provides us with data – data that we\u00a0convert to information – and informationa the we\u00a0use to derive decisions and actions.<\/p>\n

A person who\u00a0is naturally inclined to the S<\/strong>ensor end of the S-N<\/strong> dimension prefers to use Reality and Actuality as their reference\u00a0– and they access it\u00a0via their senses – sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. They are often detail and data focussed; they\u00a0trust their senses and their conscious awareness; and\u00a0they are more comfortable with routine and structure.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

A person who is naturally\u00a0inclined to the iN<\/strong>tuitor end of the S-N<\/strong> dimension prefers to use Rhetoric and Possibility as their reference and their internal conceptual model that\u00a0they access via their intuition. They are often principle and concept focussed and discount what their senses tell them in favour\u00a0their\u00a0intuition. Intuitors feel uncomfortable\u00a0with routine and structure which they see as barriers to improvement.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

So when\u00a0a S<\/strong>ensor and an iN<\/strong>tuitor are working together to solve a problem they are approaching it from two different directions and even when they have a common purpose, common values and\u00a0a common\u00a0objective it is very likely that conflict will occur if they are unaware of their different gifts<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Gaining this awareness is\u00a0a key to success\u00a0because the synergy of the two approaches is greater than\u00a0either working alone – the sum is greater than the parts – but only\u00a0if there is awareness and mutual respect for the different gifts<\/em>.\u00a0 If there is no awareness and\u00a0low mutual respect then the sum will be less than the parts and the problem will not be dissolvable.<\/p>\n

In her research, Isabel\u00a0Briggs Myers found that about 60% of high school students\u00a0have a preference for S<\/strong> and 40% have a preference for N<\/strong> – but when the “academic high flyers” \u00a0were surveyed the ratio was S<\/strong>=17%\u00a0\u00a0and N<\/strong>=83% – and there was no difference between males and females.\u00a0 When she looked at the S-N<\/strong> distribution in different training courses\u00a0she discovered that there were\u00a0a higher\u00a0proportion of S<\/strong>-types in Administrators (59%), Police (80%), and Finance (72%) and a higher proportion of N<\/strong>-types in Liberal Arts (59%), Engineering (65%), Science (83%), Fine Arts (91%), Occupational Therapy (66%), Art Education (87%), Counselor Education (85%), and Law (59%).\u00a0\u00a0Her observation suggested that individuals select\u00a0subjects\u00a0based on their\u00a0“different gifts<\/em>”\u00a0and this\u00a0throws an interesting light on why traditional professions\u00a0may come into conflict and perhaps why large organisations tend to form departments of “like-minded individuals”.\u00a0 Departments with names like Finance, Operations and Governance\u00a0 – or FOG.<\/p>\n

This insight also offers an explanation for the conflict between “strategists” who tend to be N<\/strong>-types and who naturally gravitate to the “manager” part of an organisation and the “tacticians” who tend to be S<\/strong>-types and who naturally gravitate to the “worker” part of the same organisation.<\/p>\n

It\u00a0 has also\u00a0been shown that conventional “intelligence tests<\/em>” favour the N<\/strong>-types over the S<\/strong>-types\u00a0and suggests\u00a0why\u00a0highly intelligent academics my perform very poorly when asked to apply their concepts and principles\u00a0in the real world.\u00a0Effective action requires\u00a0pragmatists – but academics tend to congregate in academic instituitions – often disrespectfully labelled by pragmatists as “Ivory Towers”.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Unfortunately\u00a0this\u00a0innate tendency\u00a0to seek-like-types is counter-productive because it re-inforces the differences, exacerbates the communication barriers, \u00a0and leads to “tribal” and “disrespectful” and “trust eroding” behaviour, and to the “organisational silos”\u00a0that are\u00a0often evident.<\/p>\n

Complex real-world problems cannot be solved this way because they require the synergy of the gifts<\/strong>\u00a0– each part playing to its strength when the time is right.<\/p>\n

The first step to know-how is self-awareness.<\/p>\n

If you would like to\u00a0know your Jungian\/MBTI\u00ae type you can do so by getting the app: HERE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There are two\u00a0directions from which we\u00a0can approach an improvement challenge.\u00a0From the\u00a0bottom up – starting with the real\u00a0details and distilling the principle later; and\u00a0from the top down\u00a0– starting\u00a0with the conceptual principle and doing the detail later.\u00a0 Neither is better than the other – both are needed. As individuals we have an innate preference for real detail … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The Devil and the Detail”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,18,21,30,35,42,43,45,48],"tags":[203],"class_list":["post-1077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books","category-finance","category-governance","category-operations","category-reflections","category-how","category-why","category-what","category-trust","tag-personality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1077","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}