herrmann hbdi certiﬁ cation workshop · tel.: +61 2 9880 2333 - fax: +61 2 9880 2343 - email:...

Herrmann HBDI® Certifi cation Workshop

Tab 6: The HBDI® Team Profi le Guide

© Herrmann Global 2017

1

The HBDI® Team Profi le GuideThe HBDI® Team Profi le Guide

Introduction:

There are many fl exible delivery options you can use to meet your team’s needs with the best learning program for them. You can select from in-person classroom delivery, online delivery or both in a blended design.

Always begin your preparation using this HBDI® Team Profi le guide to analyze the team’s report.

Prerequisites: All team members must complete the HBDI® Assessment and receive an in-person or online debrief before attending the Team Session, or the debrief can be facilitated for a team the fi rst part of the day. Relevant articles and(or) activities may be assigned for reading prior to the event.

There are three basic learning paths for debriefi ng and engaging participants with the HBDI® Team Profi le Report:

I. Business of Thinking: ThinkAbout Teams Workshop (Approximately 3.5 –5.5 hours)

This workshop gets teams to think about the tasks they are facing, the individuals that make up the teams and the best way they can work together to achieve their goal. It results in highly motivated teams of individuals who can maximize their unique contribution while appreciating and encouraging the contribution of others.

**See the Business of Thinking; ThinkAbout Teams Facilitator Guide

II. HBDI® Team Profi le Debrief In-person session

(Approximately 2.0 – 2.25 hours)

This session is best when there is limited time and a specifi c application in mind. Because it is a shortened version of The Business of Thinking® module ThinkAbout Teams, it is designed for a focused objective rather than a general understanding. Use it when a team needs to do strategic planning, create innovation or have a project to complete.

**See the HBDI® Team Profi le Facilitator’s Debrief Guide

Debrief Section© Herrmann Global 2017

2


III. Online HBDI® Team Webinars

(1.5 hours Core Debrief featuring the Composite, Average, Preference Map and Scores/Adjective Pairs)

Immediately improve eff ectiveness, communication and productivity with the HBDI® Team Profi le In Action Webinar. This interactive webinar uses the HBDI® team data to provide a revealing analysis of areas of opportunity, confl ict and stress. Team members leave with an action plan on how they will apply Whole Brain® Thinking to their advantage, as individuals and as a team.

(2.5 – 3.5 hours Custom Team Webinars)

Custom Team Webinars explore team reports containing a variety of data sets to explore, compare and contrast with highly interactive activities and discussion with team members.

Contact your Herrmann Representative for support with team webinars.

Note: Coaching as well as additional application learning tools and workshops are also available.


3


Analyzing an HBDI® Team Profi le

The HBDI® Team Profi le is an excellent way to initiate discussions with a team or group. The data can open areas of opportunity, as well as confl ict and stress, without the ‘emotional baggage’ often associated with group interaction. The HBDI® Team Profi le includes thirteen reports and is fi lled with a variety of data sets to explore, compare, and contrast. While each person’s thinking preferences are represented, they are all displayed confi dentially. Only certifi ed practitioners are given a legend, so there’s no danger of disclosing information that is to be held in confi dence.

As you go through the various reports included in the HBDI® Team Profi le, be on the lookout for sensitive or potentially challenging topics. The value of these reports is that they are data driven. The data often helps to remove the emotion from sensitive areas. If individuals have a good grasp of their personal profi le and its

implications, they will be in a better position to fully understand the HBDI® Team Profi le.

Each report is described in the following pages along with suggestions/ideas on how to analyze it in order to identify the key points.

ArTfocoaoeino

© 2004 The Ned Herrmann Group, Inc.

HerrmannInternational

Herrmann International Asia PO Box 383 Pymble NSW 2073 AustraliaTel.: +61 2 9880 2333 - Fax: +61 2 9880 2343 - Email: [email protected] - Web : www.herrmannasia.com

HBDI™ Team Profile

HBDI

™ T

eam

Pro

file

Participants

Sample Team Pack

CLARKE, BOBGALIK, MATTHEW P

GOWING, TRICIAHOUSTON, CAMERON

LINDSAY, JACKIEMAYBURY, AILSA

MITCHINSON, CARAMORGAN, CHRIS

MORGAN, MICHAELPARKE, DIANE

ROMAN, SASHASILVIO, GRACETOBIAS, IRWINWELSH, JENNY


4


Graphic Presentation of Composite Profi le

The Group Composite Profi le is an overlay of each individual’s HBDI® Profi le on the profi le grid. This report demonstrates strengths of preference both for individuals and the group or team for each quadrant of the Whole Brain® Model. It also displays areas of lesser preference for each quadrant.

What to look for

Is the range of preference within each quadrant?

Is there a broad range within the same quadrant—profi les with strong preference scores over 100 and other profi les that are in the low preference range of 10-33? Is there a narrow range of preference within one quadrant?

In which quadrants does the team have strong or very strong preferences?

In which quadrants does it have intermediate preferences?

In which quadrants does it have low preferences?

Are there some ‘spikes’ (e.g., people who have a very high score)? What are the implications?

How do the upper mode and lower mode compare? What are the implications?

How do the left mode and right mode compare? What are the implications?

Here are some points to bring out during the discussion of this report when they apply to this team

If there is a broad range of scores within a quadrant, many points of view will be represented.

A great range of preference can be an initial place to look for confl ict or stress.

Quadrants where the range of preference is narrow can be quadrants where the group experiences ‘group think’—a benefi t at times and at other times a possible hindrance.

Heterogeneity is often a gauge of the potential breadth of thinking of a group/team as they face diff erent situations and challenges.

More information

Read page 11 in the HBDI® Profi le section (B). Reading Your Profi le Step by Step for the explanation of left mode vs. right mode and upper mode vs. lower mode.

Httra

Graphic Presentation of Composite Profile

HBDI™ Team Profile - © 2007 The Ned Herrmann Group, Inc. - Herrmann Sample Team Pack Page 4/16

Strong Preference

Intermediate Preference

Low Preference

A

B C

Dfactualquantitativecriticalrationalmathematicallogicalanalytical

imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic

synthesisersimultaneous

spatial

readerspeakerdominantdetailedsequentialcontrolledconservative

readertalker

intuitivesymbolicspiritualmusical

emotional

40%Left

Mode60%

Right

Mode

49%

Upper Mode

51%

Lower Mode

The percentages indicate the preferences for one mode compared to the opposite mode


5


Graphic Presentation of Average Profi le

The solid black line diagram shows the overall group/team preferences for each quadrant. The dotted line diagram shows the adjective pairs scores for each quadrant. The adjective pairs scores show how an individual or team operates under pressure. The group average is developed by calculating the average of each of the quadrant scores (adding each individual’s score in a quadrant, and then dividing the total for that quadrant by the number of participants). Each quadrant average score is plotted on the HBDI® Profi le grid. The average profi le can highlight the degree of similarity and/or diff erence between each of the four quadrants that may translate into a signifi cant preference for one versus a low preference for another. This display charts preferences for the quadrants by mapping the data in the primary preference (<67), secondary/intermediate preference (34-66) or lower preference zones (0-33).

What to look for

Is there a distinct tilt toward one or more quadrants? What are the implications?

Is there a diff erence of more than 20 points between any two quadrants?

Which are the most preferred quadrants? least preferred?

What are the implications of that?

Is the profi le ‘balanced’ with scores in all quadrants within 6-8 points of each other?

If this is a balanced profi le, are the scores the result of most team members having similar scores or the result of a wide-range of scores that average out more in the middle?

How does the normal tilt compare with the adjective pairs (under stress) tilt?

Points to bring out during the discussion

of this report if they apply to this team

Diff erences of more that 20 points between quadrants can be signifi cant.

Diff erences of degree of preference across the diagonal axis (A vs. C or B vs. D) can indicate exaggerated tilts toward the quadrant of preference and possible gaps in the quadrant of low preference. When a strong preference is juxtaposed to a low preference on the diagonal, verify if the average score in the quadrant of strong preference is made up of similar scores or the result of a wide-range of scores that average out more in the middle? When it is the result of similar scores, this indicates a potential ‘blind spot’ of strong preference and potentially low preference in the opposing quadrant.

A very ‘balanced’ average profi le should be explored in conjunction with the Graphic Composite Profi le. The average can be easily misinterpreted if it is read without taking into consideration the nature of the profi les or the number of participants. For example,

Graphic Presentation of Average Profile

Profile Scores Adjective Pairs


Thinkers Innovators

Organisers Database Average Humanitarians

Strong Preference


Low Preference

A

B C

D57

64 90

90

factualquantitativecriticalrationalmathematicallogicalanalytical

imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional

40%Left

Mode60%

Right

Mode

49%

Upper Mode

51%

Lower Mode


6


an average of two people with opposing profi les will display a balanced profi le. A balanced profi le could also be obtained by averaging two similar multi-dominant profi les.

Homogeneous teams that are comprised of mostly balanced profi les will often experience good ‘coverage’ of styles across the model, with eff ective communication but also may represent a lack of specialized thinking where it may be needed.

More heterogeneous teams comprised of very diff erent profi les will have the opportunity to benefi t from the broader spectrum of specialized thinking preferences but may suff er from some miscommunication between team members.

More information

Research has shown that a balance between multi-dominant profi les and strong quadrant specifi c profi les leads to a potentially more eff ective and creative group. For more information on this research see our website www.hbdi.com and go to the ‘articles’ page or www.hbdi.com/articles.html to see the article “How to Improve Group Productivity: Whole-brain Teams Set New Benchmarks” by Charles G. DeRidder and Mark A. Wilcox


7

The HBDI® Team Profi le Guide

Debrief Section

Rank Order of Team Preferences by Quadrant

This display shows the rank order of overall preferences for the group/team, in descending order of preference from most to least. This often refl ects the direction of the group’s thinking in their day-to-day work process (not in times of stress).

What to look for

What do these preferences suggest about how the team may approach its work or spend its time? What problems might that create for a team?

How does that match up with your experience of the team?

How does this refl ect or impact the priorities of the team?

What is the work-fl ow process of your group? Which quadrant does it often start with? Why? What next? Etc.

What are the implications for your eff ectiveness? Are there areas you never ‘get to’ or that create problems for the group? How might you better address those?

Points to bring out during the discussion of this report if they apply to this team

The group can appoint a person on the team to be the ‘watchdog’ for the quadrant that is least preferred. For a group whose rank order of preferences displays a strong preference for A and a lesser preference for the C quadrant for example, they may

appoint the person with the strongest preference in C to be their watchdog or ‘internal consultant’. For each action point they could then check in with their ‘advisor’ for feedback. To make sure they are not overlooking that quadrant.

Often when groups gather for a meeting they begin where they are most comfortable and end the meeting before they get to areas where they are less comfortable. This is true of thinking preferences as well. The Rank Order of Preferences report will confi rm for many where their tasks and topics originate due to the strongest preferences and areas they never ‘get around to’ due to the group’s lack of preference. For example, a group whose strongest preferences are in the D Quadrant may spend their hour meeting brainstorming and then leave with no action plan because the B quadrant is their least preferred. The Rank Order of Preferences Report can bring this to light for the group without placing blame.

The group may wish to develop an action plan for improved eff ectiveness with this data in mind.

Rank Order of Team Preferences byQuadrant


The rank order of preferences of this team as a whole:

D Upper Right 90

C Lower Right 90

B Lower Left 64

A Upper Left 57


8


This top display shows the fl ow of preferences from most preferred to least preferred. The lower graphic uses the Adjective Pairs data to show the fl ow of preferences when the team is under pressure. The two preference fl ows may be diff erent. Next to each quadrant is found the percentage of the total that each quadrant represents.

What to look for

Is there a quadrant the team is likely to skip due to low preference?

How does the normal fl ow compare with the fl ow under pressure (e.g., Adjective Pairs)?

Where does this team go under pressure?


Small diff erences between quadrants will not signifi cantly impact the fl ow of work or the priorities of the team.

Big diff erences of 12 points or more will see an impact on the fl ow of the work and where priorities fall.

The Rank Order of Preferences by Quadrant is an excellent report to show a team how they can use this team data.

— For example, a group whose strongest preferences are in the D Quadrant may spend an hour meeting doing brainstorming and then leave with no action plan because the B quadrant is their least preferred. To make sure that

the team leaves with action items, it can agree to allow 10 minutes at the end of each meeting to develop an action plan.

— For a group whose Rank Order of Preferences displays a strong preference for A and a lesser preference for the C quadrant, they may appoint the person with the strongest preference in C to be their ‘internal consultant’. For each action point they could then check in with their ‘advisor’ for feedback.

Process Flow of Preferences


Alternate style from Adjective Pairs

A D

B C

19%

21% 30%

30%Facts Future

Form Feeling

19%

22% 34%

25%

This graphic presents the alternateflow of preferences according to theAdjective Pairs section averageresults.The Adjective Pairs result tells ussomething about how we react whenunder pressure.This may or may not be consistentwith the general behavior of this team.

A D

B C

Debrief Section

Process Flow of Preferences


9



Scores above 100 represent very strong preferences that are often very visible to others. They frequently have a strong impact on group process.

Scores below 33 will also have an impact on group process by their absence of preference.

A big range may indicate very diff erent, contrasting viewpoints within the group.

A small range often indicates an area where the group shares that level of preference, whatever that might be; low, intermediate, or high. That homogeneity of preference for that quadrant often provides a ‘shared space’ for the group.

— If that shared space is in an area of high preference, then the outcome may be a ‘tribal-like’ sharing of viewpoints and perspectives.

— If the homogeneity falls into an intermediate preference, then there is most likely a comfort zone for the group as a whole in that mode, but no passion or highly specialized preferences in that quadrant.

— If the small range falls into a low preference zone, then the group may collectively lack energy for that approach and could overlook important aspects of a problem or situation relating to that quadrant.


HBDI® Profi le Results: List of Scores

Profile Results: List of Scores

HBDI™ Team Profile - © 2007 The Ned Herrmann Group, Inc. - Herrmann Sample Team Pack

Upper Left Lower Left Lower Right Upper Right Intro/Extro

Profile 5 87 63 78 56 7/9

Profile 6 48 90 75 81 7/9

Profile 7 24 50 137 98 7/9

Profile 1 29 68 135 65 2/9

Profile 13 51 75 98 66 8/9

Profile 9 69 90 92 45 4/9

Profile 4 66 77 92 71 5/9

Profile 11 30 35 98 150 6/9

Profile 10 48 57 83 128 3/9

Profile 2 78 35 57 126 7/9

Profile 3 74 65 69 96 7/9

Profile 8 54 75 75 95 8/9

Profile 12 78 53 80 92 7/9

Page 8/16

Sum 736 833 1169 1169 78Average 57 64 90 90 6Min 24 35 57 45 2Max 87 90 137 150 8Std. dev. 19.8 17.2 22.6 29.5 1.8Med. 54 65 83 92 7Range 63 55 80 105 6

Debrief Section

This detailed list provides comprehensive profi le information in numeric form, listing the A, B, C, and D scores for each participant. It also lists the individual’s introvert/extrovert scores. This is taken from question number 100 on the HBDI®.

This list is organized by quadrant preference, going from most left to most right scores in the Whole Brain® Model. See HBDI® Team Profi le Participants for the list of participants by number. The group has a list. Participants can usually fi nd their profi le in the list.

Each person’s quadrant scores are displayed as well as the total score for each quadrant, the average score and standard deviation. In addition, the Median (e.g., an equal number of scores are above and below), Minimum, Maximum scores and the Range of scores for each quadrant are also calculated.

What to look for

What’s the range in each quadrant? Wide or narrow?

Where are the scores above 100? In each quadrant? In several quadrants?

Are there any very strong preference scores (e.g., over 133)?

Are there any scores below 33?

What, if any, problems might occur because of

the ranges?


10


Preference Map

The Preference Map is a very powerful visual display that indicates the ‘preference tilt’ of each participant. Each person’s profi le is miniaturized and placed on the map based on its degree of preference; the more whole brained a profi le (1111, 1112, 2111, 1211, 1121, 1212, 2121) is, the closer to the center of the grid it appears. As profi les are placed away from the center toward the A, B, C, or D positions, the degree of ‘tilt’ for those quadrants increases. When profi les are placed toward the Left, Right, Upper and Lower positions, the preferences for those modes are stronger. This shows how each individual profi le is similar or diff erent from the position of the other profi les on the team. This helps show how heterogeneous or homogeneous the team is.

The entire team’s ‘preference tilt’ is also shown on the preference map. This is the average tilt of the entire team and is shown as a large white circle.

‘Mini-tribes’ or clusters of similar preference are easily identifi ed. If two or more profi les are in close proximity on the map, those individuals will often demonstrate similar thinking preferences—perhaps even ‘group-think’. Profi les that are a great distance apart will display very diff ering preferences.

The degree of introvert/extrovert of each individual is also shown. In the miniaturized profi les. The grey scale at the bottom of the page indicates the shading used to show the degree of introvert/extrovert.

What to look for Are there clusters (or

mini-tribes)? What are the implications?

Where is the natural pull on this team (e.g., right, left, upper, lower)?

Are there loners (profi les that are alone/separate from the other profi les on the map)?

What are the implications of this distribution?

The degree of introvert/extrovert in each individual.

As a facilitator, what are the dynamics in the room likely to be? How will you interact with the group (e.g., Are you a loner)?


Individuals who are part of the team/group but have diff erent preferences from others may feel this ‘separateness’ during group interactions.

Those who are more multi-dominant and balanced are found in the center of this grid.

Those who are more cognitive and intellectual are more toward the upper position.

Those who are more grounded and instinctual are more toward the lower position.

Those who are more pragmatic and realistic are toward the left position.

Those who are more intuitive and open are toward the right position.

Preference Map


A

B C


imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional

Introvert Extrovert

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13


11


There also can be profi les that are more singular in preference. Those will be positioned more toward the A, B, C and D

letters found around the grid.

Word of caution

Some individuals will relish being a ‘loner’, while others may be uncomfortable with it. This person’s data will most likely be ‘obvious’ to the others in the group. So in fact you will be disclosing confi dential data if you share the preference map with the group, who will recognize the loner. If you have a ‘loner’, be sure to disclose this report to the individual before

sharing it with the group to verify they are comfortable with your approach. It’s better to be safe than sorry when it comes to revealing confi dential data.

When you have carefully staged your presentation of individual data, more often than not, individuals will feel proud of their HBDI® Profi le, no matter where their data falls on the Preference Map.


12


Scores/Adjective Pairs

This report shows two views of the Preference Map. The upper map shows team member preferences when they are not under stress. The lower map shows the team members preferences when they are under stress.

What to look for

What, if anything, happens to this team under stress?

Where are the clusters or mini tribes when the team is under stress?

Where are the loners when the team is under stress?

What are the implications of the diff erences between the team under stress and the team when it isn’t under stress?


The profi les on the adjective pair preference map often seem to ‘explode outward’ in comparison to the regular preference map. You can explain this by reminding participants

that under stress, profi les often shift toward quadrants of stronger preference, which can accentuate the diff erences between profi les.

If the two preference maps are similar, that may indicate that there is very little shift under stress. However, there is still an opportunity to discuss with the group what impact stress has on their productivity, team dynamics or other factors.

Scores

Scores / Adjective Pairs

Adjective Pairs


A

B C

D

A

B C

D


imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional


imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

10 11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13


13


Work Elements by Quadrant

The Work Elements section of the HBDI® Assessment Form asks the individual to rank Work Elements from 1 to 5: ‘5’ being work they do best and ‘1’ being work they do least well. This report presents the data individually. Each bar represents the response for one individual (the position of the bar for each person is consistent in all of the graphs). The bars are clustered by quadrant for ‘at a glance’ group understanding. Close inspection reveals the areas each individual reported does his or her ‘best work’ as well as the work that individual reported doing ‘least well’. This can give you a new perspective on individual data. For example, one individual’s bar may show ‘5s’ in all four A Quadrant Work Elements and ‘1s’ or ‘2s’ in the C Quadrant Work Elements.

What to look for

Is there at least one 5 on each Work Element?

Are there Work Elements that have mostly 1s? What are the implications?

Are there any Work Elements where the group is divided between extreme preference and a lack of preference?

What are the implications?


A score of 3 can be misleading because sometimes people rate an element a 3 because they have run out of ‘4s’ and ‘5s’. Therefore, some ‘3s’ actually represent areas of strength.

The sequence of the bars representing the scores for each element is in the same order for each element cross all four quadrants. Thus, the fi rst bar for analytical, technical, problem solving, fi nancial, etc. represent the data selections for the same participant.

A score of 1 or 2 usually represents a work activity that is not strong; a 1 may mean an activity that is a very low priority.



1

2

3

4

5

analytical

1

2

3

4

5

technical

1

2

3

4

5

integration

1

2

3

4

5

conceptualising

1

2

3

4

5

problem solving

1

2

3

4

5

financial

1

2

3

4

5

creative

1

2

3

4

5

innovating

1

2

3

4

5

organisation

1

2

3

4

5

planning

1

2

3

4

5

teaching

1

2

3

4

5

writing

1

2

3

4

5

administrative

1

2

3

4

5

implementation

1

2

3

4

5

expressing

1

2

3

4

5

interpersonal

A D

B C


14


Rank Order of Work Elements

By averaging and rank ordering the rating of each Work Element, you will be able to immediately recognize the strengths of the group. You will also readily recognize areas of lesser preference.

What to look for

Which work elements are rated the strongest?

Which are rated the weakest?

Which quadrants have the strongest preferences?

Which quadrants have the lowest preferences?


How do the preferred work elements align with the team’s tasks?

How do the work elements compare with the team’s normal average profi le vs. its adjective pairs profi le?

Debrief Section


Just because a work element shows up in the middle doesn’t mean that the team is only moderately competent. Several team members may have rated those elements

with ‘3s’ because they ran out of ‘4s’ and ‘5s’.

Keep the Work Elements in mind to compare with the Key Descriptors. Work Elements are focused on how people see themselves at work. Key Descriptors refl ect a person’s more general assessment of their preferences which includes both work and the rest of their life.



technical

financial

administrative

planning

organisation

creative

innovating

implementation

conceptualising

analytical

writing

integration

expressing

problem solving

teaching

interpersonal

1 2 3 4 5Averages


15


Key Descriptors by Quadrant

analytical

logical

mathematical

rational

critical

quantitative

factual

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Most descriptive Selected

spatial

simultaneous

synthesiser

holistic

intuitive

artistic

imaginative

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


reader

speaker

dominant

detailed

sequential

controlled

conservative

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


reader

talker

intuitive

symbolic

spiritual

musical

emotional

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


A D


In this report each bar displays the percentage of the group that chose each of the 28 Key Descriptors. Individuals choose eight Descriptors that best describe them and then identify one of the eight as the most descriptive. The bar chart also displays the percentage of the group that has descriptors chosen as ‘most’ descriptive.

In contrast to the Work Elements, the Key Descriptors refl ect individuals’ more ‘general’ description of themselves.

What to look for

What’s the distribution by quadrant?

Which quadrants have the most?

Which quadrants have the least?

Which Key Descriptors were identifi ed as most descriptive? How can those impact a team or work group?

How do the Key Descriptors compare with the Work Elements? Are there areas where participants have

identifi ed preferences in their Key Descriptors that are not refl ected in the Work Elements?

Are there quadrants that are consistently strongly preferred in both Work Elements and Key Descriptors?

Are there quadrants that are consistently least preferred in both Work Elements and Key Descriptors?


16


Rank Order of Key Descriptors


mathematical (0%)

artistic (8%)

conservative (8%)

sequential (8%)

quantitative (8%)

spiritual (15%)

dominant (15%)

symbolic (23%)

synthesiser (31%)

spatial (31%)

simultaneous (31%)

reader (31%)

reader (31%)

critical (31%)

controlled (31%)

analytical (38%)

holistic (38%)

rational (38%)

factual (38%)

imaginative (38%)

detailed (38%)

musical (46%)

talker (54%)

speaker (54%)

emotional (62%)

intuitive (69%)

intuitive (69%)

logical (69%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Averages


The rank ordering of Key Descriptors shows which descriptors were selected more than others and which descriptors were not selected at all. The bars are color coded by quadrant for easy identifi cation.

What to look for

What are the top 5 Key Descriptors?

Are they from one or two quadrants or distributed among all four?

What are the bottom 5 Key Descriptors?

Are they from one or two quadrants or distributed among all four?

Which Key Descriptors are possible developmental areas? These typically are those that score below 50%.

How do the Key Descriptors compare with the Work Elements in terms of distribution by quadrant? The Work Elements often refl ect what a team is good at—the Key Descriptors often refl ect what a team prefers to do.


Scores less that 50% can often be development areas for the team.

The top 4 or 5 Key Descriptors can have a huge impact on the team.


17


Adjective Pairs Comparison

The Adjective Pair Comparison shows which Adjective Pair was selected by the group. The bars are color coded by quadrant for easy identifi cation. The % fi gures along the bottom of the chart show how many of the team selected each adjective.

What to look for

Which Adjective Pairs did the majority of the team select?

Which Adjective Pairs did the team demonstrate a low preference?

Which of those selections might be signifi cant?

Where are the areas of potential confl ict? Which Adjective Pairs are likely to be an issue for a team?

What is the context in which the team is working and what impact will their selection have?


Adjectives that the majority of the team selected—and their implications.

Adjectives which have been equally selected—and their implications.

The Adjective Pairs refl ect how the group may think under pressure.



originate ideas / test and prove ideas

communicator / conceptualiser

musical / detailed

analyst / synthesiser

spiritual / creative

technical / dominant

well-organised / logical

feeling / thinking

problem solver / planner

controlled / emotional

controlled / creative

original / emotional

rigorous thinking / metaphorical thinking

simultaneous / empathetic

detailed / holistic

quantitative / musical

imaginative / sequential

original / reliable

interpersonal / organiser

creative / logical

warm, friendly / analytical

technical things / people-oriented

conservative / empathetic

like things planned / like things mathematical

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Averages


18


Twenty Question ComparisonThe Twenty Question Comparison shows how the group answered each question. The % fi gures along the top of each question indicate the % of the team that made that particular selection. For example, if there is a fi gure of 5% at the ‘strongly agree’ end, that indicates that 5% of the group selected ‘strongly agree’. The % fi gures in brackets indicate the total % of the group that selected either ‘agree or strongly agree’ as opposed to ‘disagree or strongly disagree’ or neutral.

What to look for

Which questions did the majority of the team agree with?

Which questions did the majority of the team disagree with?


Which questions are more signifi cant than others?

Which questions are not so important?



Those questions the team strongly agree with or disagree.

Those questions where the team does not mind.

Conclusions

Once you’ve analyzed the HBDI® Team Profi le, you have a good idea of the key points you’d like to bring out from the diff erent reports.

Be ready for the individuals who want to breeze right through the reports, while there are others who want to ‘dig-in’ to the data. Try to fi nd a balance that works for the whole group.

While the HBDI® Team Profi le reveals a tremendous amount of data, it does not prescribe remedies for team or group challenges. It starts the team on the path to discovering why there are challenges and how the team can move forward in the future to more eff ectively address those challenges.

Twenty Questions Comparison


Q 20

Q 19

Q 18

Q 17

Q 16

Q 15

Q 14

Q 13

Q 12

Q 11

Q 10

Q 9

Q 8

Q 7

Q 6

Q 5

Q 4

Q 3

Q 2

Q 1

I feel that laws should be strictly enforced.0% [31%] 31% 46% 23% [23%] 0%

I tend to rely more on my first impressions and feelings when making judgments than on a careful analysis of the situation.31% [77%] 46% 23% 0% [0%] 0%

I can frequently anticipate the solutions to my problems.15% [77%] 62% 23% 0% [0%] 0%

Thorough planning and organization of time are mandatory for solving difficult problems.15% [38%] 23% 23% 38% [38%] 0%

Know-why is more important than know-how.23% [69%] 46% 23% 8% [8%] 0%

I prefer specific instructions to those which leave many details optional.8% [54%] 46% 15% 23% [31%] 8%

Unusual ideas and daring concepts interest and intrigue me.31% [69%] 38% 23% 8% [8%] 0%

It is important for me to have a place for everything and everything in its place.8% [46%] 38% 46% 0% [8%] 8%

I prefer to work with others in a team effort rather than solo.8% [31%] 23% 46% 23% [23%] 0%

I dislike things being uncertain and unpredictable.8% [31%] 23% 15% 54% [54%] 0%

I would enjoy spending an entire day "alone with my thoughts."31% [62%] 31% 0% 23% [38%] 15%

I'm basically more competitive with others than self-competitive.8% [31%] 23% 8% 38% [61%] 23%

Much of what is most important in life cannot be expressed in words.31% [69%] 38% 8% 23% [23%] 0%

I sometimes get a kick out of breaking the rules and doing things I'm not supposed to do.23% [69%] 46% 0% 31% [31%] 0%

I rely on hunches and the feeling of "rightness" or "wrongness" when moving toward the solution to a problem.46% [84%] 38% 15% 0% [0%] 0%

I often get my best ideas when doing nothing in particular.38% [84%] 46% 15% 0% [0%] 0%

I would rather be known as a reliable than an imaginative person.15% [46%] 31% 23% 23% [31%] 8%

I like people who are most sure of their conclusions.8% [46%] 38% 38% 15% [15%] 0%

Daydreaming has provided the impetus for the solution of many of my more important problems.15% [61%] 46% 31% 8% [8%] 0%

I feel that a step by step method is best for solving problems.15% [69%] 54% 15% 15% [15%] 0%

strongly agree strongly disagree


HBDI® Team Profi le Debrief

Facilitator Debrief Guide


21

The HBDI® Team Profi le

Notes

21

The HBDI® Team Profi le Debrief

NotesTable of Contents

Module at a Glance ....................................................... 22

Preparation Checklist ................................................... 23

Flip Charts ...................................................................... 24

Icon Legend ................................................................... 25

Unit Description/Learning Objectives ........................ 26

Facilitator Guide for this Module

1. Module Introduction ........................................... 28

2. Graphic Presentation of Composite Profi le ...... 30

3. Graphic Presentation of Average Profi le .......... 32

4. Rank Order of Team Preferences by Quadrant 34

5. Process Flow of Preferences ............................... 36

6. Profi le Results: List of Scores ................................38

7. Preference Map ......................................................40

8. Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairs ..............42

9. Work Elements by Quadrant .................................43

10. Rank Order of Work Elements ..............................45

11. Key Descriptors by Quadrant ................................47

12. Rank Order of Key Descriptors .............................49

13. Adjective Pair Comparison ....................................50

14. Twenty Question Comparison ..............................51

15. Conclusions ............................................................ 52


22


Notes

22


NotesModule at a Glance

Unit Time Page Description/PurposeIntroduction 10 mins 28

Review of Whole Brain® Model 5 mins 29

Graphic representation 10 mins 30of composite Team Profi le

Graphic representation 10 mins 32of average profi le

Rank order of 10 mins 34Team Preferencesby Quadrant

Process Flow of 10 mins 36Preferences

Profi le Results: 10 mins 38List of scores

Preference 10 mins 40 Map

Preference Map Scores/ 10 mins 42Adjective Pairs

Work Elements 10 mins 43 by Quadrant

Rank Order of 10 mins 45 Work Elements

Key Descriptors 10 mins 47 by Quadrant

Rank Order of 10 mins 49 Key Descriptors

Adjective Pair 10 mins 50Comparison

Twenty Questions 10 mins 51Comparison

Total Time 125 mins

Each section focuses on a specifi c report in

the team package. The specifi c team data is

shared and explained followed by a discussion on the implications for

the team.

Sets the scene, breaks the ice and covers housekeeping

Reviews understanding of Whole Brain® Model


23


Notes

23


NotesPreparation Checklist

ASSEMBLE these materials before conducting the workshop

HBDI® Team Packages for each participant

Team profi le package to leave with the team leader for ongoing use (complete with overheads)

Whole Brain® Wall Chart(s) (need to be ordered from Herrmann International)

Workshop evaluations

Miscellaneous materials (colored paper; one or more fl ipcharts; pens; pencils; markers; masking tape; etc)

Toys, etc to create the learning environment

NOTE: This session assumes that the participants have, at minimum, participated in ‘Let’s Think’ previously.

DISTRIBUTE the following to participants one to two weeks before the workshop

Any logistical information on timing, venue, start times etc

Pre-course reading:

— The Business of Thinking®: Team Think—Team Power™.

NOTE: Individual Profi les and debrief sessions need to have been completed prior to scheduling this session.

REVIEW the content of the following material

Article: The Business of Thinking®: Team Think—Team Power™.

This facilitator guide

Individual Participant HBDI® Profi les

Team Profi le package for the group

PREPARE the following

Seating arrangements according to the participants profi les

Room layout—U-shaped

Facility arrangements, A/V equipment and miscellaneous materials

Agenda including breaks


24


Notes

24


Notes

Flip Charts

Unit 1 Welcome

Agenda

Parking lot

Welcometo

Team Think

Agenda / Timings

Parking Lot


25


Notes

25


NotesIcon Legend

Facilitator-Led Discussion

Text written in BOLD CAPS are actual doing instructions—eg EXPLAIN, TELL.

Text written in bold italics is actual speech you may wish to use verbatim.


26


Notes

26


NotesUnit Description/Learning Objectives

NOTE This module must be facilitated by an HBDI® Certifi ed Practitioner. The reports cannot be properly interpreted without an understanding of brain dominance.

The following guidelines must be adhered to for the session to achieve maximum benefi t to the group:

Use with an intact work group.

Have the entire team present, including the team leader. Without the entire team, eff ective team dynamics will not translate back in the work place.

The session should only be run once all individuals have received their own profi les and been debriefed. This is a necessary step because an individual needs to have insight into their own thinking patterns, and the principles of the Whole Brain® Model before they refl ect on the team profi le.

This session is best used with a specifi c application in mind. Because it is a shortened version of The Business of Thinking® module ThinkAbout Teams, it is designed for a focused objective rather than a general understanding. Use it when a team needs to do strategic planning, encourage innovation or has a project to complete.

It will be important to develop openness and cooperation amongst the participants

NOTE The Team Think Module is an abbreviated version of The Business of Thinking® module ThinkAbout Teams and is not intended to replace it. Rather it is designed as a specifi c debrief of an individual team’s collective thinking pattern- how the team as a whole processes information and prefers to work.

The process is a powerful consulting and facilitation tool that:

Improves communication by breaking down the barriers to eff ective listening and creating a common language for understanding individual and team dynamics

Increases productivity by increasing the brain power of the team and improving team dynamics

Encourages innovation by providing a way for breakthrough thinking and creativity through valuing diff erent thinking styles

Assists management by creating understanding of the implications of diff ering thinking styles


27


Notes

27


NotesThe session has immediate impact on the team’s awareness of how it thinks and is a powerful catalyst for improving team eff ectiveness.

The session is particularly eff ective in the following scenarios: A newly created team which is charged with a project. In this case, early use of

the profi les will serve as a fast track way of creating eff ective team dynamics.

An existing team that wants to improve its performance. In this case, the tool can provide insight into the current dynamics of the team and improve communication and eff ectiveness.

The Team Package consists of the following profi les and charts:

Composite Profi le

Average Profi le

Rank Order of Team Profi les by Quadrant

Profi le Results and Scores

Preference Map

Work Element by Quadrant



Rank Order of key descriptors


Twenty Questions Comparison

A Note on EthicsIt is important to deal with the ethics on the use of information contained in this report.

It is created solely for the use of these participants in order to help develop the effi ciency of the participants as they operate as an intact team.

All the information in this report is derived from the individual HBDI® Profi les of the participants. Since the individual information is always treated as confi dential, great care has been and needs to be taken to maintain the confi dentiality of the information of individuals. As a consequence, individual profi les in the report are represented anonymously and in random order to prevent any inappropriate inferences about particular individuals.

The leaders of the workshop guarantee that they will not share the content of this report with anyone other than the immediate participants. The participants may share the information as they deem appropriate.

The following pages of this unique leader’s guide have been split into notes that cover both ‘Right Brain’ and ‘Left Brain’ facilitation. ‘Right Brain’ facilitation notes, including section overviews, learning objectives, and examples, are highlighted in a red box. ‘Left Brain’ facilitation notes, which cover workshop process details and techniques, follow on under the red boxes.


28


Notes

28


Notes

1. Module Introduction—10 minutes

Welcome—1 minute

WELCOME participants to the workshop and introduce yourself

SHOW Slide #1

ASK them to take their seats

ENSURE they have brought their participant material and individual HBDI® Profi le

MAKE any administrative comments required i.e breaks, toilets, messages, phone, etc.

Module Contents—1 minute

STATE the objectives

To review the Whole Brain® Model as it applies to this team in particular

To understand the implications of the Team Profi le

STRESS that applying the knowledge of maximizing the collective intelligence of the people of the team is essential for the group’s success.

ALIGN the workshop with the team’s objectives (strategy/innovation/project outcomes)

STATE how this workshop fi ts into any other work you are doing with the team, or the organization.

Parking Lot—1 minute

INTRODUCE the Parking Lot

SAY Parking Lot is actually a fl ipchart on the wall

It is to ‘park’ ideas or thoughts so we don’t forget them

Anyone can ‘park’ an idea any time

We will review them at the end of the workshop

ASK if there are any questions before you move on….


29


Notes

29


NotesReview of Whole Brain® Model—5 minutes

REFER to the Whole Brain® Wall Chart

SAY that we should all be getting better at applying our whole brains to business issues

ASK for any examples from the group of ‘Whole Brain® Thinking’

GIVE an example yourself to encourage sharing

ASK if they remember their own HBDI® Profi le

DEAL with any questions or concerns

GIVE 2 or 3 examples yourself as needed to draw out the discussion on the relevance of the Whole Brain® Model to this group, and organizations in general.


30


Notes

30


NotesGraphic Presentation of Composite Team Profi le

Segment Overview/Description and Learning Objectives

The Group Composite Profi le is an overlay of each individual’s HBDI® Profi le on the profi le grid. This report demonstrates strengths of preference both for individuals and the group or team for each quadrant of the Whole Brain® Model. It also displays areas of lesser preference for each quadrant.

2. Composite Team Profi le—10 minutes

HANDOUT the Team Profi le to each participant

REFER participants to the fi rst few pages and EXPLAIN what the Team Pack contains

REFER participants to the Composite Team Profi le page

SHOW the slide ‘Composite Team Profi le’



Thinkers Innovators

Organisers Database Average Humanitarians

Strong Preference


Low Preference

A

B C

D57

64 90

90


imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional

40%Left

Mode60%

Right

Mode

49%

Upper Mode

51%

Lower Mode

TELL participants that this is a profi le which plots all the individual profi les.

EXPLAIN the rings:

The outer rings are preference or strong preference, where the individual will prefer to spend their time thinking in this quadrant

The middle ring shows an intermediate preference where an individual will be OK using that thinking style.

The inner rring shows a low preference and the individual will least prefer thinking in that quadrant.

EXPLAIN the left and right modes and scores

EXPLAIN the Upper and Lower mode scores

TRACE the profi les maps of each of the individuals—asking them to refer to their own profi les


31


Notes

31


NotesDRAW participants’ attention to the following:

Highest and lowest scores for each quadrant

The spread of the scores in each quadrant

The clustering of preferences in each quadrant

Facilitator-led discussion:

LEAD a discussion by posing the following questions:

What to look for

What’s the range of preference within each quadrant?

Is there a broad range within the same quadrant—profi les with strong preference scores over 100 and other profi les that are in the low preference range of 10-33?

Is there a narrow range of preference within one quadrant?

In which quadrants does the team have strong or very strong preferences?

In which quadrants does it have intermediate preferences?

In which quadrants does it have low preferences?

Are there some ‘spikes’ (eg people who have a very high score)? What are the implications?

How do the upper mode and lower mode compare? What are the implications?

How do the left mode and right mode compare? What are the implications?

Here are some points to bring out during the discussion of this report when they

apply to this team:

If there is a broad range of scores within a quadrant many points of view will be represented.

A great range of preference can be an initial place to look for confl ict or stress.

Quadrants where the range of preference is narrow can be quadrants where the group experiences ‘group think’—a benefi t at times and at other times a possible hindrance. Lead a discussion on the following points.

Heterogeneity is often a gauge of the potential breadth of thinking of a group/team as they face diff erent situations and challenges.


32


Notes

32


NotesGraphic Presentation of Average Profi le


The solid black line diagram shows the overall group/team preferences for each quadrant. The dotted line diagram shows the adjective pairs scores for each quadrant. The adjective pairs scores show how an individual or team operates under pressure. The group average is developed by calculating the average of each of the quadrant scores (adding each individual’s score in a quadrant, and then dividing the total for that quadrant by the number of participants). Each quadrant average score is plotted on the HBDI® Profi le grid. The average profi le can highlight the degree of similarity and/or diff erence between each of the four quadrants that may translate into a signifi cant preference for one versus a low preference for another. This display charts preferences for the quadrants by mapping the data in the primary preference (>66), secondary/intermediate preference (34-66) or lower preference zones (0-33)

3. Average Team Profi le—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Average Team Profi le page

SHOW the slide ‘Average Team Profi le’

Graphic Presentation of Average Profile


Thinkers Innovators

Strong Preference


Low Preference

A

B C

D57

64 90

90


imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional

40%Left

Mode60%

Right

Mode

49%

Upper Mode

51%

Lower Mode

EXPLAIN the average ABCD scores

DRAW OUT the conclusions for this team

EXPLAIN the database average: the average for all people in the world would be 1 1 1 1. However, when smaller numbers of people are averaged (i.e. this team) the graph will show a skew refl ecting the strength of the various profi les.

EXPLAIN the various profi les in each corner:

Thinkers: this is an average profi le of all the people with strong A quadrant preferences

Organizers: this is an average profi le of all the people with strong B quadrant preferences

Humanitarians: this is an average profi le of all the people with strong C quadrant preferences

Innovators: this is an average profi le of all the people with strong D quadrant preferences


33


Notes

33


NotesFacilitator-Led discussion:

LEAD a discussion by posing the following questions:What to look for

Is there a distinct tilt toward one or more quadrants? What are the implications?

Is there a diff erence of more than 20 points between any two quadrants?

Which are the most preferred quadrants? Least preferred?

What are the implications of that?

Is the profi le ‘balanced’ with scores in all quadrants within 6-8 points of each other?

If this is a ‘balanced’ profi le, are the scores the result of most team members having similar scores or the result of a wide range of scores that average out more in the middle?

How does the normal tilt compare with the adjective pairs (under stress) tilt?


Diff erences of more that 20 points between quadrants can be signifi cant.

Diff erences of degree of preference across the diagonal axis (A vs. C or B vs. D) can indicate exaggerated tilts toward the quadrant of preference and possible gaps in the quadrant of low preference. When a strong preference is juxtaposed to a low preference on the diagonal, verify if the average score in the quadrant of strong preference is made up of similar scores or the result of a wide range of scores that average out more in the middle? When it is the result of similar scores, this indicates a potential ‘blind spot’ of strong preference and potentially low preference in the opposing quadrant.

A very ‘balanced’ average profi le should be explored in conjunction with the Graphic Composite Profi le. The average can be easily misinterpreted if it is read without taking into consideration the nature of the profi les or the number of participants. For example, an average of 2 people with opposing profi les will display a balanced profi le. A balanced profi le could also be obtained by averaging two similar multi-dominant profi les.

Homogeneous teams that are comprised of mostly balanced profi les will often experience good ‘coverage’ of styles across the model, with eff ective communication but also may represent a lack of specialized thinking where it may be needed.

More heterogeneous teams comprised of very diff erent profi les will have the opportunity to benefi t from the broader spectrum of specialized thinking preferences but may suff er from some miscommunication between team members.


34


Notes

34


NotesRank Order of Team Preferences by Quadrant


This display shows the rank order of overall preferences for the group team, in descending order of preference from most to least. This often refl ects the direction of the group’s thinking in their day-to-day work process (not in times of stress).

4. Rank Order of Team Preferences by Quadrant—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Rank Order of Team Preference by Quadrant page

SHOW the slide ‘Team Preferences’

Rank Order of Team Preferences byQuadrant


The rank order of preferences of this team as a whole:

D Upper Right 90

C Lower Right 90

B Lower Left 64

A Upper Left 57

EXPLAIN that the slide shows the rank preferences of the average preferences from the previous average slide

EXPLAIN that the rank order shows the sequence in which the group accesses each of the quadrants

EXPLAIN how the diff erence between the quadrants aff ects the fl ow of preferences. Most teams will run out of time before they get to the last quadrant, because they have spent too much time on their preferred quadrant activities. The higher the diff erence between the quadrant scores, the more likely they will get stuck in the higher of the two quadrants.

Facilitator-led discussion


What to look for

What do these preferences suggest about how the team may approach its work or spend its time? What problems might that create for a team?

How does that match up with your experience of the team?

How does this refl ect or impact the priorities of the team?


35


Notes

35


Notes What is the work-fl ow process of your group? Which quadrant does it often start

with? Why? What next? Etc.

What are the implications for your eff ectiveness? Are there areas you never ‘get to’ or that create problems for the group? How might you better address those? Points to bring out during the discussion of this report if they apply to this team:

The group can appoint a person on the team to be the ‘watchdog’ for the quadrant that is least preferred. For a group whose Rank Order of Preferences displays a strong preference for A and a lesser preference for the C quadrant for example, they may appoint the person with the strongest preference in C to be their watchdog or ‘internal consultant’. For each action point they could then check in with their ‘advisor’ for feedback. To make sure they are not overlooking that quadrant.

Often when groups gather for a meeting they begin where they are most comfortable and end the meeting before they get to areas where they are less comfortable. This is true of thinking preferences as well. The Rank Order of Preferences report will confi rm for many where their tasks and topics originate due to the strongest preferences and areas they never ‘get around to’ due to the group’s lack of preference. For example, a group whose strongest preferences are in the D Quadrant may spend their hour meeting brainstorming and then leave with no action plan because the B quadrant is their least preferred. The Rank Order of Preferences Report can bring this to light for the group without placing blame.


36


Notes

36


NotesProcess Flow of Preferences


This top display shows the fl ow of preferences from most preferred to least preferred. The lower graphic uses the Adjective Pairs data to show the fl ow of preferences when the team is under pressure. The two preference fl ows may be diff erent. Next to each quadrant are found the percentage of the total that each quadrant represents.

5. Process Flow of Preferences—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Process Flow of Preferences page

SHOW the slide ‘Process Flow of Preferences’

EXPLAIN that the slide shows the fl ow of preferences from one quadrant to another

EXPLAIN that the top diagram shows the fl ow of preferences based on the profi le average. The bottom diagram shows the fl ow of preferences based on the adjective pairs

EXPLAIN the percentage fi gures indicate the percentage score for each quadrant—and indicated the relative importance of each quadrant



What to look for

Is there a quadrant the team is likely to skip due to low preference?

How does the normal fl ow compare with the fl ow under pressure (eg Adjective Pairs)?

Where does this team go under pressure?

Points to bring out during the discussion of this report if they apply to this

team

Small diff erences between quadrants will not signifi cantly impact the fl ow of work or the priorities of the team.


37


Notes

37


Notes Big diff erences of 12 points or more will see an impact on the fl ow of the work

and where priorities fall.

The Rank Order of Preferences by Quadrant is an excellent report to show a team how they can use this team data.

— For example, a group whose strongest preferences are in the D Quadrant may spend an hour meeting doing brainstorming and then leave with no action plan because the B quadrant is their least preferred. To make sure that the team leaves with action items, it can agree to allow 10 minutes at the end of each meeting to develop an action plan.

— For a group whose Rank Order of Preferences displays a strong preference for A and a lesser preference for the C quadrant, they may appoint the person with the strongest preference in C to be their ‘internal consultant’. For each action point they could then check in with their ‘advisor’ for feedback eff ectiveness with this data in mind. For the example group above, they may decide that no matter how many great ideas they have in a meeting, at 10 minutes before the meeting’s end they will draw up an action plan.


38


Notes

38


NotesProfi le Results: List of Scores


This detailed list provides comprehensive profi le information in numeric form, listing the A, B, C, and D scores for each participant. This list is organized by quadrant preference, going from most left to most right scores in the Whole Brain® Model. See HBDI® Team Profi le Participants for the list of participants by number. The group has a list. Participants can usually fi nd their profi le in the list.

Each person’s quadrant scores are displayed as well as the total score for each quadrant, the average score and standard deviation. In addition, the Median (eg an equal number of scores are above and below), Minimum, Maximum scores and the Range of scores for each quadrant are also calculated.

6. Profi le Results: List of Scores—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Tabulated Scores page

SHOW the slide ’tabulated scores’

Profile Results: List of Scores

Upper Left Lower Left Lower Right Upper Right Intro/Extro

Profile 5 87 63 78 56 7/9

Profile 6 48 90 75 81 7/9

Profile 7 24 50 137 98 7/9

Profile 1 29 68 135 65 2/9

Profile 13 51 75 98 66 8/9

Profile 9 69 90 92 45 4/9

Profile 4 66 77 92 71 5/9

Profile 11 30 35 98 150 6/9

Profile 10 48 57 83 128 3/9

Profile 2 78 35 57 126 7/9

Profile 3 74 65 69 96 7/9

Profile 8 54 75 75 95 8/9

Profile 12 78 53 80 92 7/9

Sum 736 833 1169 1169 78Average 57 64 90 90 6Min 24 35 57 45 2Max 87 90 137 150 8Std. dev. 19.8 17.2 22.6 29.5 1.8Med. 54 65 83 92 7Range 63 55 80 105 6

EXPLAIN that the table shows the previous graphical representations as a numerical table.

EXPLAIN that the top table lists the scores of each individual.

EXPLAIN that the bottom half shows the following scores:

Total—these are the sum of the individual scores for each quadrant

Average—these are the totals divided by the number of individuals in the group

Minimum—this is the lowest individual quadrant score.

Maximum—this is the highest individual quadrant score


39


Notes

39


NotesFacilitator-led discussionLEAD a discussion on the following points:

What to look for

What’s the range in each quadrant? Wide or narrow?

Where are the scores above 100? In each quadrant? In several quadrants?

Are there any very strong preference scores (eg over 133)?

Are there any scores below 33?

What, if any, problems might occur because of the ranges?


team

Scores above 100 represent very strong preferences that are often very visible to others. They frequently have a strong impact on group process.

Scores below 33 will also have an impact on group process by their absence of preference.

A big range may indicate very diff erent, contrasting viewpoints within the group.

A small range often indicates an area where the group shares that level of preference, whatever that might be; low, intermediate, or high. That homogeneity of preference for that quadrant often provides a ‘shared space’ for the group.

— If that shared space is in an area of high preference then the outcome may be a ‘tribal-like’ sharing of viewpoints and perspectives.

— If the homogeneity falls into an intermediate preference, then there is most likely a comfort zone for the group as a whole in that mode, but no passion or highly specialized preferences in that quadrant.

— If the small range falls into a low preference zone, then the group may collectively lack energy for that approach and could overlook important aspects of a problem or situation relating to that quadrant.


40


Notes

40


NotesPreference Map


The Preference Map is a very powerful visual display that indicates the ‘preference tilt’ of each participant. Each person’s profi le is miniaturized and placed on the map based on its degree of preference; the more whole brained a profi le (1111, 1112, 2111, 1211, 1121, 1212, 2121) is, the closer to the center of the grid it appears. As profi les are placed away from the center toward the A, B, C, or D positions, the degree of ‘tilt’ for those quadrants increases. When profi les are placed toward the Left, Right, Upper and Lower positions, the preferences for those modes are stronger.

This shows how each individual profi le is similar to or diff erent from the position of the other profi les on the team. This helps show how heterogeneous or homogeneous the team is.

‘Mini-tribes’ or clusters of similar preference are easily identifi ed. If two or more profi les are in close proximity on the map, those individuals will often demonstrate similar thinking preferences—perhaps even ‘group think’. Profi les that are a great distance apart will display very diff ering preferences.

7. Preference Map—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Preference Map page

SHOW the slide ‘Preference Map’

A

B C


imaginativeartistic

intuitiveholistic


spatial


readertalker


emotional

Introvert Extrovert

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

EXPLAIN that each numbered circle shows each individual plotted on the map. They will see that each circle shows their own graph inside it.

DISCUSS the implications of the spread of the profi les:

Facilitator-led discussionLEAD a discussion on the following points:

What to look for

Are there clusters (or mini-tribes)? What are the implications?

Where is the natural pull on this team (eg right, left, upper, lower)?


41


Notes

41


Notes Are there loners (profi les that are alone/separate from the other profi les on the

map)?

What are the implications of this distribution?

As a facilitator, what are the dynamics in the room likely to be? How will you interact with the group (eg Are you a loner?)


team

Individuals who are part of the team/group but have diff erent preferences from others may feel this ‘separateness’ during group interactions.

Those who are more multi- dominant and balanced are found in the center of this grid.

Those who are more cognitive and intellectual are more toward the upper position.

Those who are more grounded and instinctual are more toward the lower position.

Those who are more pragmatic and realistic are toward the left position.

Those who are more intuitive and open are toward the right position.

There also can be profi les that are more singular in preference. Those will be positioned more toward the A, B, C and D letters found around the grid.

Word of Caution

Some individuals will relish being a ‘loner’, while others may be uncomfortable with it. This person’s data will most likely be ‘obvious’ to the others in the group. So in fact you will be disclosing confi dential data if you share the preference map with the group, who will recognize the loner. If you have a ‘loner’, be sure to disclose this report to the individual before sharing it with the group to verify they are comfortable with your approach. It’s better to be safe than sorry when it comes to revealing confi dential data.

When you have carefully staged your presentation of individual data, more often than not, individuals will feel proud of their HBDI® Profi le, no matter where their data falls on the Preference Map.


42


Notes

42


NotesPreference Map/Adjective Pairs


This report shows two views of the Preference Map. The upper map shows team member preferences when they are not under stress. The lower map shows the team members preferences when they are under stress.

8. Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairs—10 minutes

REFER participant to Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairspage

SHOW the slide ‘Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairs’

EXPLAIN that the page shows 2 views of the data. The top one is based on the profi le scores, the bottom one is based on the adjective pair scores

EXPLAIN that this shows how the team may behave under stress


LEAD a discussion on the following points:What to look for

What, if anything, happens to this team under stress?

Where are the clusters or mini tribes when the team is under stress?

Where are the loners when the team is under stress?

What are the implications of the diff erences between the team under stress and the team when it isn’t under stress?


team

The profi les on the adjective pair preference map often seem to ‘explode outward’ in comparison to the regular preference map. You can explain this by reminding participants that under stress, profi les often shift toward quadrants of stronger preference, which can accentuate the diff erences between profi les.

If the two preference maps are similar, that may indicate that there is very little shift under stress. However, there is still an opportunity to discuss with the group what impact stress has on their productivity, team dynamics or other


43


Notes

43


NotesWork Elements by Quadrant


The Work Elements section of the HBDI® Assessment Form asks the individual to rank Work Elements from 1 to 5: ‘5’ being work they do best and ‘1’ being work they do least well. This report presents the data individually. Each bar represents the response for one individual (the position of the bar for each person is consistent in all of the graphs). The bars are clustered by quadrant for ‘at-a-glance’ group understanding. Close inspection reveals the areas each individual reported does his or her ‘best work’, as well as the work that individual reported doing ‘least well’. This can give you a new perspective on individual data. For example, one individual’s bar may show ‘5’s’ in all four A Quadrant Work Elements and ‘1’s’ or ‘2’s’ in the C Quadrant Work Elements.

9. Work Elements by Quadrant—10 minutes

REFER participant to Work Elements by Quadrant page

SHOW the slide ‘Work Elements by Quadrant’



1

2

3

4

5

analytical

1

2

3

4

5

technical

1

2

3

4

5

integration

1

2

3

4

5

conceptualising

1

2

3

4

5

problem solving

1

2

3

4

5

financial

1

2

3

4

5

creative

1

2

3

4

5

innovating

1

2

3

4

5

organisation

1

2

3

4

5

planning

1

2

3

4

5

teaching

1

2

3

4

5

writing

1

2

3

4

5

administrative

1

2

3

4

5

implementation

1

2

3

4

5

expressing

1

2

3

4

5

interpersonal

A D

B C

EXPLAIN how the histograms are constructed:

The vertical axis shows the score out of 5

The horizontal axis shows the individuals

The work elements are those that were in the questionnaire

The scores are those they each nominated for each element.

EXPLAIN how this representation gives a snapshot view of:

The type of work that will motivate or de-motivate the team.

Where there are low scores in the group, it indicates that as a whole they will not do these elements well, if at all.

The spread of preferences in the group.

Where there are individuals that show high scores compared to the others for that work element, the group may wish to divide the tasks up according to individual’s level of motivation towards that element.


44


Notes

44


NotesSpecifi cally DRAW THE ATTENTION of the group to:

How each individual’s scores vary between all the work elements?

The scores of each element within each quadrant.

Any quadrants’ relative weakness, which may have individual elements which are strong.

Quadrants of relative strength which are weak in a particular element.


LEAD a discussion on the following points:

What to look for

Is there at least one 5 on each Work Element?

Are there Work Elements that have mostly 1’s? What are the implications?

Are there any Work Elements where the group is divided between extreme preference and a lack of preference?



team

A score of 3 can be misleading because sometimes people rate an element a 3 because they have run out of ‘4’s’ and ‘5’s’. Therefore some 3’s actually represent areas of strength.

The sequence of the bars representing the scores for each element is in the same order for each element cross all four


45


Notes

45


NotesRank Order of Work Elements


By averaging and rank ordering the rating of each Work Element, you will be able to immediately recognize the strengths of the group. You will also readily recognize areas of lesser preference.

10. Rank Order of Work Elements—10 minutes

REFER participants to Work Elements by Rank Order

SHOW the slide ‘Work Elements by Rank Order’



technical

financial

administrative

planning

organisation

creative

innovating

implementation

conceptualising

analytical

writing

integration

expressing

problem solving

teaching

interpersonal

1 2 3 4 5Averages

EXPLAIN how the histogram is constructed:

The vertical axis shows the list of elements from most to least nominated

The horizontal axis shows the group preference for that element

The work elements are those that were in the questionnaire

EXPLAIN how this representation gives a snapshot view of:

The type of work that will most motivate or de-motivate the team

The lower the element, the less that as a whole team they will do these elements well, if at all.

The distribution of the elements from the same quadrant. The colors of the bars gives a quick visual means of seeing the distribution of the group’s element preferences—in some cases it may be that the entire group demonstrates low preferences for certain elements

Specifi cally DRAW THE ATTENTION of the group to:

The most frequently selected elements

The least frequently selected elements

How elements from the same quadrant are distributed


46


Notes

46


NotesFacilitator-led discussion


What to look for

Which work elements are rated the strongest?







team:

Just because a work element shows up in the middle doesn’t mean that the team is only moderately competent. Several team members may have rated those elements with ‘3’s because they ran out of ‘4’s’ and ‘5’s’.

Keep the Work Elements in mind to compare with the Key Descriptors.


47


Notes

47


NotesKey Descriptors by Quadrant


In this report each bar displays the percentage of the group that chose each of the 28 Key Descriptors. Individuals choose eight Descriptors that best describe them and then identify one of the eight as the most descriptive. The bar chart also displays the percentage of the group that has descriptors chosen as “most” descriptive. In contrast to the Work Elements, the Key Descriptors refl ect individuals’ more “general” description of themselves.

11. Key Descriptors by Quadrant—10 minutes

REFER participants to Key Descriptors by Quadrant page

SHOW the slide ‘Key Descriptor by Quadrant’

EXPLAIN how the histograms are derived: It simply shows the % of people in the group or team that selected that key

descriptor

Draw the team’s attention to:

Comparisons between individual Key Descriptors compared to others in the same quadrant

Individual Key Descriptors compared to all others

Specifi c quadrants compared to other quadrants: is there a stronger pattern in any one quadrant than the others?

Weak preference within a strongly-preferred quadrant and vice versa.



What to look for

What’s the distribution by quadrant?

Which quadrants have the most?

Which quadrants have the least?

Which Key Descriptors were identifi ed as most descriptive? How can those impact a team or work group?


48


Notes

48


Notes How do the Key Descriptors compare with the Work Elements? Are there areas

where participants have identifi ed preferences in their Key Descriptors that are not refl ected in the Work Elements?

Are there quadrants that are consistently strongly preferred in both Work Elements and Key Descriptors?

Are there quadrants that are consistently least preferred in both Work Elements and Key Descriptors?


team

The size of the group will be a factor in the percentages. For example, a group with only four members could have just one person choose a certain Key Descriptor as ’most descriptive’ and that would show up as 25% preference.

There can be diff erences between the Key Descriptors and the Work Elements because sometimes people have preferences that they are not able to satisfy through work. The Key Descriptors may refl ect preferences that are being satisfi ed through hobbies and other non-work activities. For example, Imaginative and Artistic may be selected in the Key Descriptors section, while Creative and Innovative in the Work Elements section may ranked with low numbers (1-3, work done least well). This could imply that creative aspects are pursued outside of work, or that a training gap or cultural issues could prevent the individual from being creative and innovative on the job.

The Key Descriptors may also refl ect preferences that team members would like to satisfy through work, especially if they aren’t able to meet those needs through non-work related activities.


49


Notes

49


Notes



The rank ordering of Key Descriptors shows which descriptors were selected more than others and which descriptors were not selected at all. The bars are color coded by quadrant for easy identifi cation.

12. Rank Order of Key Descriptors—10 minutes

REFER participants to Rank Order of Key Descriptors page

SHOW the slide ‘Rank Order of Key Descriptors’

EXPLAIN how the histograms are derived: The vertical axis shows the list of key descriptors from most to least nominated

The horizontal axis shows the group preference for that element

EXPLAIN how this representation gives a snapshot view of: Which key descriptors are rated the strongest?






Facilitator-led discussionLEAD a discussion by posing the following questions:

What to look for

What are the top 5 Key Descriptors? Are they from one or two quadrants or distributed among all four?

What the bottom 5 Key Descriptors? Are they from one or two quadrants or distributed among all four?

How do the Key Descriptors compare with the Work Elements in terms of distribution by quadrant?


50


Notes

50


NotesAdjective Pair Comparison


The Adjective Pair comparison shows which adjective pair was selected by the group.

13. Adjective Pair Comparison—10 minutes

REFER participants to Adjective Pair Comparison page

SHOW the slide ‘Adjective Pair Comparison’’

EXPLAIN that the bars are color coded by quadrant for easy identifi cation. The % fi gures along the bottom of the chart show how many of the team selected each adjective.

EXPLAIN that the report shows how the team answered each of the adjective pair questions



What to look for

Which adjective pairs did the majority of the team select?

Which adjective pairs did the team avoid?


Where are the areas of potential confl ict? Which Adjective Pairs are likely to be an issue for a team?



team:

Adjectives that the majority of the team select and the implications

Adjectives which have been equally selected and the implications

The Adjective Pairs refl ect how the group may think under pressure


51


Notes

51


NotesTwenty Question Comparison


The Twenty Question comparison shows how the group answered each question.

The % fi gures along the top of each question indicate the % of the team that

made that particular selection. For example, if there is a fi gure of 5% at the

‘strongly agree’ end, that indicates that 5% of the group selected ‘strongly agree’.

The % fi gures in brackets indicate the total % of the group that selected either

‘agree or strongly agree’ as opposed to ‘disagree or strongly disagree’

14. Twenty Question Comparison—10 minutes

REFER participants to Twenty Question Comparison page.

SHOW the slide ‘Twenty Question Comparison’’

EXPLAIN that the report shows how the team answered each of the twenty questions

Facilitator-led discussion:


What to look for

Which questions did the majority of the team agree with?

Which questions did the majority of the team disagree with?


Which questions are more signifi cant than others?

Which questions are not so important?



team:

Those questions where the team strongly agree with or disagree

Those questions where the team does not mind.


52


Notes

52


NotesConclusions

Once you’ve analyzed the Team Profi le, you have a good idea of the key points you’d like to bring out from the diff erent reports.

Be ready for the individuals who want to breeze right through the reports, while there are others who want to ‘dig-in’ to the data. Try to fi nd a balance that works for the whole group. While the HBDI® Team Profi le reveals a tremendous amount of data, it does not prescribe remedies for team or group challenges. It starts the team on the path to discovering why there are challenges and how the team can move forward.



FOLLOW US:

Phone: 1-828-625-9153 or 1-800-432-4234 www.herrmannsolutions.com

CLIENTSHerrmann International clients, for whom better thinking has become integral to their business culture, include:

herrmann hbdi certiﬁ cation workshop · tel.: +61 2 9880 2333 - fax: +61 2 9880 2343 - email:...

Documents