Pigeonholing People
It is only Tuesday and the week is already challenging and somewhat frustrating. That could be the reason why the practice of pigeonholing people is really annoying me, perhaps more so than usual.
Those of us who work in the operations area are regularly pigeonholed. This aggravates me on a personal level as well as general management level. Whilst we usually accept this as our lot and we just get on with it, it does beg the question, why should we accept being pigeonholed and what can we do about reversing the practice.
If we don’t like it, I am sure our employees don’t either and as I have discovered it is more widespread than perhaps we think. When this happens within the lower management levels in organisations I could accept that it may be inexperience and possibly insecurity that prompts this behaviour. At a senior level however it defies logic, but then again, perhaps it is unrealistic to expect that inexperience and insecurity are not lurking within the corridors of power. Perhaps it is power or the perceived lose of power that also contributes to pigeonholing.
It begs the question however how rich and fruitful could the discussion, planning or decision-making be if a range of ideas and experiences were taken into consideration. What opportunities are we missing out on because we pigeonhole and stifle conversation and input? Why couldn’t the IT Manager have some great ideas when it comes to sales and marketing? Conversely, why couldn’t the sales and marketing head contribute to the discussion and direction of IT?
Marketers or at least the enlightened ones learnt the lesson some years back that customers resent being pigeonholed. Should we believe any differently of our staff and our managers? When people want to engage and we stifle that engagement what impact does that have on value, motivation and worth; I suspect a significantly negative impact.
There are laws against discrimination based on age, gender, race and the like. Perhaps we need an ‘unwritten’ law in business that we will not discriminate based on function or position description.
So what is the point of this rambling? I am keen to hear from others as to why they believe we tend to pigeonhole people. What if any techniques people have used (personally) to ensure they are not pigeonholed? How do we change the mind set of front-office and back-office and to open up the engagement and contribution across both.
Access three years of leadership tips
There are 3 years worth of pages of leadership tips, insight, conversations, wisdom in this Hub. There are several ways in. One is to click on 'Forums' or 'Blogs' on the left. Or click on one of the panels below this. Or use the 'search' box.
Hub TV
Have you seen?
Leadership Subjects
Recent Comments
The Leadership Hub supports
Complexity leads to
Developing expertise leads to
Someone once said, quite loudly, in our office, ' developing expertise is growing to know more and more, about less and less, until in the end, you know everything about nothing '. As you would expect, many people laughed, but, as you would also expect, there is a grain of truth there.
I agree with Cali, about small companies not being able to afford that pigeonholing mentality. I think that maybe that develops from the way those business' grow. The seed is usually an idea, with one or two people who are very competent in a couple of key areas for the product that is to be made. But, they also have to learn to do those other jobs, since there's only them available to do them, and, in the case of a first time venture, no capital readily available. Then, as the company grows they will need to expand. There is only so far they can expand without needing to get more staff. And, the staff that they do get are usually well aware when they start that they are expected to be jack of most trades and developing expert in one or two. And, so on and so forth. I saw this in small business' where I have worked, and also when my mum was setting up and running her own business. It is also true that the leadership, from people in positional leadership roles is very team focused. Maybe that helps. The MD down in the packing area helping to get that important order out on time.
As to how we stop pigeonholing, one way may be to rotate through different departments. This can either be part of a development program (almost a requirement for promotion to the next level even), or a person's natural progression. There is one guy where I work who has worked in the Purchasing, Supplier Quality, and Value Improvement departments. It is very difficult to pigeonhole him.
In an internal promotion, it is unlikely that someonewill be put in a position that the company has never seen them do. Usualy they will have been moved to a senior, or deputy position, to see how they handle the work and stess, then their performance evaluated by those around the vacant or soon to be vacated position. In this instance, I think, you have to be careful not to pigeonhole yourself.
Colin
Big Company v's Small
Pigeonholing - walking in the other person's shoes
I agree this is a big problem and is partly driven by the 'turf' mentality: "I'm the sales and marketing manager/director, you're only the IT manager/director. What do you think you're doing trying to make me look bad by coming up with a marketing idea? And what do you know about it anyway? How would you feel if I tried telling you how to run IT?" So, yes, a lot of the reason behind pigeonholing is insecurity and need to protect one's own position.
But, also I think in many cases it's just mental shorthand that has got out of hand. I mean laziness rather than malice and self interest. We all have a tendency to think in cliches, grab the easy image from the boxes in our heads and interpret people that way. Sometimes we can be shocked out of this by the principle of walking a mile in other people's shoes - the job rotation Colin mentions, for example. At Southwest Airlines, which is supposed to have an egalitarian and open culture, with ideas accepted from everyone, they still have to work at it. One of the popular stories told about Southwest is that the pilots can sometimes be seen helping out the baggage handlers and loading the baggage if they have finished their flightdeck preparations and have nothing else to do.
That's true. But, what is also true is that when they tried official job role swopping to get a sense of other people's jobs, one of the pilots - dressed as a baggage handler this time - said he was amazed at how differently the flight crew, including other pilots, treated him, as if he was 'just' a baggage handler. Um, the baggage handlers didn't fly the planes, you'll be glad to hear...
Being explicit about this helps change the culture. Southwest have a 'No Zingers' rule: don't criticize a new idea and shoot it down just because of where it comes from. Mike Harris, a leader I respect a lot (founding CEO of First Direct Bank, egg financial services, and the telecoms company that eventually became 1to1 and then was bought by T-Mobile) says you also help change the culture by modelling openness to ideas and making it clear the strength of an idea wins, not where it comes from.
At his level, CEO level, it means, he says, arguing fiercely but detachedly (odd, but it makes sense) for what you think is right, listening just as fiercely and detachedly to the other person/people's counter ideas and not being afraid, even in public and on the spur of the moment, to say "Hmmm. You've convinced me. your idea stands more chance of succeeding than mine. Let's try it." And then fighting for that ideas just as fiercely as you fought for the one you originated yourself. Requires a control of our own ego and a sense of security that a lot of managers and directors still need to learn, doesn't it.
Sorry, I went on too long there. Phil
Be Careful with Psychometric Tests
Many organizations love to use psychometric tests, whether it's for teambuilding, leadership development or recruitment piurposes. In the past, I had a lot of exposure to their use, though I've never been certified in administering them; I was simply on the receiving end. My organizations was infatuated with the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), but also used the DISC profile and a few others.
I recently listened to a radio interview with a management professor who had very serious concerns with the use of such tests. While there are some good instruments available, he noted that one has to be exceedingly careful with how the results are interpreted and used in organizations, and that many of these instruments are not just junk but potentially harmful to employees' careers.
In my experience, employees were quickly labelled--pigeon-holed--according to their MBTI profiles. Some of the HR people with whom I worked on several change management and leadership development training projects were almost maniacal zealots when it came to psychometric testing.
My advice to those in management who wish to embrace this type of testing: do your homework on the instruments, fit the instrument with the specific needs, and avoid at all costs the tendency to label people.
David Taylor on psychometric tests
Just read this - David Taylor's Naked Leader newsletter - and it sums up what I don't like about MBTI and psychometric tests and adds a perspective to Jim's point, above:
Dear Phil
N Leader Week – 344 – Monday 25 January 2010
Your Personality - Your Choice
Time to Read – 3 minutes if you are an ITDW, 10 if you are an ERQV
Personality/Team member type questionnaires are only taking a snapshot at a single point in time in your life. If they conclude that you are, say, an introvert, that is only how you feel at that moment and you can choose to change. Otherwise a test you do at age five will give you exactly the same results at age twenty, which is clearly not the case. Your learning, experience and conditioning between five and twenty will lead to a different result.
The danger is when we believe we are a natural ‘whatever’ type and that we can do nothing about it. After making this discovery, we revert to type, and start to behave accordingly. Then we can use the results of the Personality Test as an excuse for our behaviour - after all it is not under our own control.
We may even judge the quality of our relationships based on our results compared to theirs. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous? Imagine a child saying to you they are worried about going to play with a friend because “he is a PTUI personality and because I am an HJQP I don’t think we are going to get on.”
Personality is a matter of choice, not a matter of birth.
What do you think?
With my love
David (type FJKP!)
X www.nakedleader.com
On Psych tests
I have had several goes at the MBTI over my life, and I have found that the results have varied slightly. I have put this down to the change in experiece in my life, the change in responsibilities in my life and other such things. The change has not been significant, but it was there.
The other thing I have found, which worries me when I hear about companies relying too heavily on things like the MBTI, is that it is possible to practise the test and get an idea on how you should answer the questions, so that you can give a type that will be more favoured for the position you are after.
Now, here's a question. There are a lot of tests available at various sites across the internet, there's even one here. The question is, how brutally honest are you when you do those tests for yourself. Just for your own self awareness.
I once did the full IPIP-NEO test, something like 400 questions. After about the 50th, I stopped trying to analyse what the question would be aimed at, and just started to answer as quick as possible. This is, by the way, the way that they prefer you to do the test.
You know how, when you are doing a sketch of something, you start with very faint lines, and then start to press harder, to draw the definite lines. Well, the report from that test was like drawing the defining lines around the sketch that was the parts of myself that I knew about, but had not examined too deeply.
Regards,
Colin.
The limitation is the person using it not the test
It's not surprising that many people have had negative experiences using psychometric profiling when you look at how little training is required to use them. A 2-3 day course isn't enough to grasp the nuances of how to use an instrument for development, but the reality is most people attend these courses to get the "tick in the box" so that they can use the organisation's chosen flavour of test, without any thought to the potential impact on the people who will go through it.
Ironically, MBTI offers more than most instruments, as anyone who takes a little time to study the concepts that underpin it would quickly realise its potential. Jung talked about a lifelong journey of development; the preferences expressed in the MBTI instrument merely describe some of the major routes you are likely to take on that journey. We've worked hard at this in my organisation, but I really feel that managers are beginning to understand both the potential benefits and also the limitations of these instruments. People are beginning to see the opportunities that understanding their preference brings, rather than seeing the limitations - the pigeonhole if you like.
Colin - if people are using MBTI for selection purposes then you need to tell them to stop. MBTI measures underlying psychological preferences, NOT behaviours - using it in selection is inappropriate and unethical. There are instruments that measure behaviours, but for precisely the reasons you outline even they have severe limitations. Used to help suggest interview questions they can be useful but anyone who makes decisions based on the results of these questionnaires alone needs their head looking at.