Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: systems thinking

TB871: A deeper dive into OCEAN

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

A satellite photo showing eandering wadis combine to form dense, branching networks across the stark, arid landscape of southeastern Jordan.

As I introduced in a previous post, the OCEAN model presents a way of understanding personality through the traits of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Profiling people using this model can help provide insights into both personal and interpersonal dynamics, which can be helpful in strategic contexts involving uncertainty, diverse perspectives, and undefined boundaries.

The idea is that profiling yourself and others using the OCEAN model enhances self-awareness and understanding of others. This is particularly helpful with communication, as appreciating different perspectives and working styles, helps create a better working environment. For example, I’ve said many times in person and on this blog that the Belbin feedback I received showed a difference between how I was perceived by the team who worked in the same office as me, compared with those who worked at other institutions. By appending smiley emoji to my emails, I altered how those external colleagues considered the ‘tone’ I was taking with them.

Profiling team members can also help in creating balanced teams. A mix of traits, for example combining highly conscientious individuals with those high in openness, encourages both detailed planning and creative problem-solving. Understanding personality traits may be valuable in resolving conflicts, too, as it provides insights into how people react differently in stressful situations. As a result, we can use a range of strategies to manage differences constructively.

When dealing with strategy, especially in unpredictable environments, team profiling helps anticipate responses to uncertainty. Individuals who are high in ‘openness’ (like me!) may thrive in ambiguous situations, exploring novel solutions. Individuals with high ‘agreeableness’ may excel in finding common ground, while those with high extraversion could advocate for specific viewpoints effectively. Traits such as openness and conscientiousness also influence perceptions of boundaries: those high in openness may push for broader scopes, while those high in conscientiousness focus on clear, manageable limits.

Reflecting on my own results from the PRISM-OCEAN test, I found that I am characterised as:

  • Open (curious, creative)
  • Conscientious (organised, disciplined)
  • Introverted (low key, reserved)
  • Strong-minded (competitive, sceptical)
  • Moderate (mellow, nervous)

These traits no doubt influence my approach to systems thinking and strategy making:

  • Openness: My curiosity and creativity mean I’m naturally drawn to explore the holistic and integrative aspects of systems thinking. This trait enables me to embrace diverse perspectives and novel ideas, which are important in dealing with complex and uncertain environments.
  • Conscientiousness: My organisational skills and disciplined nature ensure that my strategic plans are well-structured and considered. This trait helps balance the broad exploration encouraged by openness with more detailed, methodical planning.
  • Introversion: As someone reserved and low key, I might prefer reflecting on issues internally before engaging in discussions. Indeed, I prefer writing to figure out what I think than discussing things with others. This introspective approach potentially leads to deeper insights and more thoughtful contributions when collaborating with others.
  • Strong-mindedness: My competitive and sceptical nature drives me to critically evaluate different strategies and viewpoints. This trait is seen as a character defect by some, but I think it can be valuable in identifying potential flaws and ensuring sound decision-making processes.
  • Moderate Neuroticism: Being ‘mellow’ yet occasionally ‘nervous’ helps me stay calm under pressure while being aware of potential risks. This balance is achieved by managing stress effectively and organising my life and thoughts so that I can maintain focus during strategic planning.

It’s obvious but true that different individuals perceive situations differently. A risk analyst is usually someone who is detail-oriented and methodical, and may find structured environments comforting. Conversely, a tradesperson, accustomed to a more dynamic approach problem-solving, might prefer less structured settings. Such personality traits influence one’s approach to systems thinking, as high openness may naturally align with systems thinking’s holistic nature, while high conscientiousness might focus on detailed, methodical aspects (aka more ‘systematic’ approaches).

The metaphor used in the module materials (The Open University, 2020) is of systems thinking encouraging broader perspectives, similar to widening a ‘torch beam.’ High openness may facilitate this process, whereas high conscientiousness might require balancing detailed analysis with broader views. As familiarity with systems methodologies grows, what once seemed ‘dark’ may become more manageable.

Profiling using the OCEAN model potentially provides useful insights into human behaviour, which in turn helps us with effective strategy making in complex environments. Reflecting on the personality traits of ourselves and others within the context of systems thinking enhances our strategic capabilities. This can aid in the integration of diverse perspectives and management of uncertainty.

References

Image: USGS

TB871: Responding to change (and junking a lot of perfectly good habits in favor of awkward new ones)

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

Systems Thinking, to me at least, is about making strategy to change something within an organisation, or in an environment that contains organisations. As such, the fact that something is going to change is a given.

The received wisdom is that “people don’t like change.” But that’s not necessarily true, especially given what I’ve discussed in previous posts about personality and personality differences in teams. The module materials (The Open University, 2020) discuss Oreg’s Resistance to Change Scale and the four factors defining a disposition towards change:

  • Routine seeking
  • Emotional reaction to imposed change
  • Short-term focus
  • Cognitive rigidity.

Plotting these against the ‘Big Five’ personality traits leads to some interesting findings:

Table showing correlations between 'The Big Five' personality dimensions and resistance to change.
Table taken from module materials (The Open University, 2020)

As you can see, the table indicates that the strongest correlations are observed with extraversion and neuroticism. It suggests that individuals with a tendency towards neuroticism are more inclined to resist change, demonstrating positive correlations with routine seeking, emotional reaction, and short-term focus. On the other hand, those with a tendency towards extraversion show negative correlations with these factors, indicating they are less prone to resistance to change behaviours.

Beyond these strong correlations, the relationships between the Big Five dimensions and resistance to change factors are perhaps more nuanced. For instance, conscientiousness is positively correlated with routine seeking but negatively correlated with short-term focus, suggesting a complex interplay between an individual’s drive for order and their capacity for long-term planning. Openness, meanwhile, shows no significant correlation with any resistance to change factors, indicating that those who are open to new experiences do not necessarily exhibit higher or lower levels of resistance to change.

Resistance to change, though varying in intensity based on circumstances, is a natural trait to some extent in everyone. It includes scepticism, inertia, and ‘reactance’, which is a term borrowed from electronics, and defined as an immediate and unpleasant emotional response to perceived threats to freedom.

While resistance may be more pronounced in some individuals, possibly due to learned behaviours from childhood, studies show that there is no significant gender difference. However, greater resistance to change is more commonly found in younger people compared to older individuals, which I find interesting (and certainly backed up by my experiences as a parent). I think this is probably to do with people who have less knowledge of the world seeking reassurance through routines. But I’m speculating.

Reflecting on my own life, as someone who is apparently open, conscientious, introverted, strong-minded, and moderate, I have a complex relationship with change. In both my personal and professional life I enjoy strict routines but understand that these are temporary constructs. Regular readers of my blog will be unsurprised to see me reference once again Clay Shirky’s reflection that “current optimization is long-term anachronism” (Uses This, 2014). I’ve been validated and inspired over the last decade by his casual mention that how, “at the end of every year” he “junk[s]” a lot of perfectly good habits in favor of awkward new ones” (Ibid.).

References

TB871: Working with individual differences (MBTI & OCEAN)

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

I’m moving into the Block 4 People Stream for this module, with the focus on working with individual differences. Systems Thinking involves, at the very least, defining a boundary, thinking holistically, and considering multiple perspectives, and so this part of the module is dealing with the latter.

When making strategy, rather than sitting individually in a darkened room with a wet towel over our head thinking deeply, we need to work together. That means considering other people’s preferences. I confess right off the bat that I’m not great at doing this, so I’m looking forward to getting into it.

The ‘headline issues’ for this part of the module (The Open University, 2020) are:

  • What patterns are there in my own personality and personal style and how might they affect my practices around making strategy?
  • What might be the impact of others’ individual variations of personality and personal style when applying systems tools for thinking strategically about situations?
  • What could I do to support individuals involved in making strategy, to take account of individual differences?

Thinking about personality is fascinating to me, mainly due to reflecting on my own and how I feel like it’s changed over the years. Other people believe that personality is something that is relatively fixed, while others think it’s more determined by one’s environment, especially when growing up. This is usually referred to as the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate.

16 Personalities

Last year, while we were out for coffee and cake, one of our two teenagers asked about something related to personality. One thing led to another, and we ended up doing the 16 Personalities test. This is based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator which, I have to say, I’ve always been skeptical about.

Myers-Briggs personality types divided into Analysts, Diplomats, Sentinels, and Explorers categories, each with respective personality type names and abbreviations in colored boxes.

The data with Myers-Briggs is entirely self-reported, which means that it’s all about how you see yourself, rather than being corroborated with how others see you. It’s unsurprising, therefore, that I think that my ‘personality type’ (INTJ) sounds a lot like me:

People with the INTJ personality type (Architects) are intellectually curious individuals with a deep-seated thirst for knowledge. INTJs tend to value creative ingenuity, straightforward rationality, and self-improvement. They consistently work toward enhancing intellectual abilities and are often driven by an intense desire to master any and every topic that piques their interest.

That being said, the results of the rest of my family (ENTP, ESFJ, and ISFJ) did seem to reflect how I would see them, and they certainly agreed with the description of me as an INTJ. I suppose it’s a bit like learning styles, there’s something in the idea that people learn in different ways, and it’s worth accommodating preferences, but it’s unlikely to be helpful in the long term to put people in a single box.

OCEAN ‘big five’ personality traits

Another approach to defining personality is the OCEAN test which is based on degrees of:

  • Openness
  • Conscientiousness
  • Extraversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Neuroticism

I did the PRISM-OCEAN free online test, with PRISM standing for the other end of the spectrum:

  • Practical
  • Responsive
  • Introverted
  • Strong-minded
  • Mellow

My result was OCISZ which apparently means that I’m:

  • Open (curious, creative)
  • Conscientious (organised, disciplined)
  • Introverted (low key, reserved)
  • Strong-minded (competitive, skeptical)
  • Moderate (mellow, nervous)

The module materials link to this website which has a battery of various personality tests. I think this kind of thing is best done in a team situation. I think we’ll get on to the Belbin Team Roles test later, which I found pretty enlightening when I did it with the rest of the Jisc infoNet team 13 years ago. I’ve also done work around management style in ‘normal’ and ‘stressful’ situations with the senior management team when I was over in Australia with Moodle. That was also interesting, although mainly in terms of understanding my colleagues rather than myself.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, I think personality tests describe a construct based on data that you and/or other people enter into some kind of model. As a result, the model may be more or less valid. In addition, the context surrounding the data entry matters: am I doing this test on a day when I have high self-esteem, when I’ve just received fantastic feedback or validation? Has someone else entered data knowing that I will be able to identify what they have entered?

Either way, finding ways to know what’s going on inside other people’s heads is valuable. It’s not just the content of our ideas that is useful, but how we came by them, and the assumptions we’ve made along the way.

References

css.php