Learn to recognize your own preferences and understand how your brain works—but also remember that everyone’s neural networks work a bit differently. Then, as a leader, make sure you’re creating space for everyone by championing inclusivity, fairness, open-mindedness, and neurodiversity.
I wonder though what the exact purpose of such tests as the Myer-Briggs actually is? I feel the work Goldman etc is useful as a provocation, but what else?
Thanks for sharing Laura’s piece. I found it helpful, if only as a reminder that designing a vibrant community/network/space for learning requires more than setting up the system itself — it is also remembering that people are very different, in the ways we learn, the ways we interact, the ways we contribute. We don’t need boxes or labels, perhaps, but we do need understanding of this. In open networks, remembering that you need to expect the unexpected — and that includes personalities — is key to establishing anything worth keeping over time. This touches on the debate of those who engage by reading, not by writing or by chatting or by whatever. The margins are often populated by people we don’t necessarily see but who are engaged. Laura’s piece, I think, is a reminder of that.
One of her guiding questions of what kinds of people enter into open learning networks is interesting, I think.
Kevin
Thanks Kevin for the comment. I agree that Laura’s question is interesting. I also like your point about those who might be unseen or not given voice. Just not a fan of personality tests I guess.