Money is tight and time is tighter.
What that means for training is cutting back on both quantity and unfortunately that often impacts the quality as well. Consultants are often willing to dance to the tune of the sponsor. “If you lower the bar and need the limbo we can do that because we want to pay the bills and because we may think that something is better than nothing”. The consultant or type practitioner sees that the client is in need of assistance. Those of us who use type tools know the benefits of understanding type, so we agree to “do what we can” within the framework that is given.
In a TypeLabs webinar Hile Rutledge of Otto Kroeger and Associates provided a bit of a wake-up call around this issue. That was not his intent but what he suggested was that a type practitioner needs to be very clear about knowing the purpose of any type training. In doing MBTI training he suggests that type practitioners need to contract to have the first training designed specifically around helping participants understand MBTI type theory well enough to make an informed decision about their “best-fit” type. That’s it – a single focus.
Then, applying type awareness to improving communication, decision making or conflict resolution for an intact team would be contracted for a second session.In the end trying to crunch introduction and application into a shorter and shorter single session timeframe doesn’t serve the client well.
The bottom line is that the type practitioner or consultant needs to be very clear about the implications of lowering the bar to limbo standards and they need to make sure that the sponsor understands exactly what outcome they can hope to achieve for each level of investment.
It is better to elevate the discussion to focus on results rather than budget alone. Anyone wanting to use type in their organization is well advised to budget for the time required to build a strong foundation and to introduce a mechanism for reinforcement in applying the knowledge.
The waltz has a 1 – 2 – 3 count and type practitioners need to take the time to present the case for quality instead of agreeing to shortcuts in a knee-jerk fashion. I understand that what I am suggesting flies in the face of current economic reality however it is important to stop and reflect on what’s required to provide a good outcome.
Without the investment of time in training and integrating into the common language of the team, the MBTI is filed at the bottom of the cabinet under MY WHAT? “Oh that was something we did last year if only I could remember what it said”