"I didn't expect there'd be so much blood..."

I was recently invited to be the 'headline act' at the monthly Facilitators cafe - a gathering of people with an interest in facilitation to hang out with their peers, reflect on practices, tools, experiences, etc.

And I took the opportunity to encourage people to do some 'stick poking' at the worlds of psychometric tools and profiling - things like Myers Briggs, Belbin Team Roles, DISC profiles, etc, which are designed to tell us/others about how we think and behave as human beings (and are usually favoured by lots of HR recruitment teams, even though they weren't originally designed for this purpose...).

My reason for this was pretty much based on the approach I always take with tools and frameworks that are presented to us as the next 'new brilliant thing' - I have an idea that all too often we rush to adopt and start to use them, without first sense checking how safe they may be, what their origin stories are, and if they do actually live up to all the hype around them (based on evidence, research, and experience).

Within the context of the time available (just under an hour, and which also had to include time for people to show off their Christmas jumpers - it was December, after all!), I suggested we create spaces (aka breakout rooms, as the cafe's a virtual one in zoom) for people to reflect on how they'd experienced these types of tools in the context of facilitating different types of groups.

Encouragingly, the consensus that emerged is broadly similar to my own (which is based on looking at different published researches into efficacy, accuracy, and safety of different psychometric frameworks...):

- "they're a tool, not a rule". We shouldn't feel obliged to be a slave to their process, or bound by what they 'score', but rather treat them flexibly, and as circumstances may otherwise dictate; 

- they're designed for individuals to reflect on themselves in a controlled environment, rather than an open facilitated session, so can't and shouldn't be used as they're designed to be. To do so would require a lot of time (which reduces the ability of the group to otherwise progress against the aims of the wider session), and increases the risk of harm and distress amongst individuals within the group in doing then so openly and publicly;

- they should be used 'lightly', with lots of 'safety rails' put in place: as one fellow facilitator shared, when recounting their use of a psychometric with a group as part of a session they facilitated: "I didn't expect there'd be so much blood...";

- it's easy to get caught in a "model muddle": with so many different frameworks out there, and each claiming to be the best, how can we be sure we're playing with the right ones?

Ultimately, we all agreed that tools like these, as with any others, are only helpful to us as facilitators if they can answer the "...so what?" question. If they don't quickly, easily, and safely help to generate insights or outputs which directly contribute to achieving a session's aims, then they're probably going to be a distraction at best.

And intriguingly, one of the cafe patrons shared how they'd taken some of the principles and ideas around psychometrics and adapted these: early on any any session, they now share a short story. Depending on how people react to different parts of that story, or how they respond to it overall, gives that facilitator a working model for how they understand each person is likely to subsequently react to different prompts or stage and elements in the session plan.

Oh, and I also got to 'show off' one of the more playful approaches I use when working with a group that's been established for a while already, and people are used to working together: Ulla Zang, as a relatively safe prompt to help people reflect on, and refresh, how well they really think they know and perceive each other.     

the one where other people say what I did this year

It's that time of year when we're all encouraged to reminisce as business owners, freelancers, and entrepreneurs.

And I've decided to 'play along' too. But rather than doing what most others seem to be (a mixture of the person's reflective anecdotes, dream client contracts won, things that felt the scariest or created the biggest 'splash' for them), I wanted to try and take a slightly more 'scientific' and experimental approach (after all, I do encourage people to play at being 'mad scientists' from time to time...). 

I've instead decided to see what might be the things other people noticed about what I was up to in the year, that they felt were most noteworthy, based on the analytics across most of my social media channels, and awards I've been feted with. 

And the results are... 

Caring about unpaid caring 

Sharing stories about my 'extra curricular' efforts to get better recognition for unpaid carers who are also self-employed, freelance, or small business owners (we're the only type of carer who isn't recognised in law, and therefore have no rights or support services designed for our needs, as carers in other circumstances do), drew the most consistent interest of all the things I talked about that I've been involved in this year.

And because of this, I've had opportunity to influence a national think tank's policy research, who have also subsequently openly published their own position paper on this (hat tip to ipse!); been profiled by a national family support charity (another hat tip to Working Families!); and been invited by the Department for Business and Trade to be part of focus groups they're convening to better understand the experiences of unpaid carers, and their employers, in different employment contexts and environments.

Continuing to feel like imposters

My book, and guesting on others' podcasts etc, about why we should rethink the whole concept of 'imposter syndrome' (on the basis that various published scientific research and study papers suggest that it isn't at all what most people say and think it is), also continues to draw ongoing interest.

Challenging what people think social enterprise is (and should be) about

And my ongoing reflections about what emerging data sets and researches about what the future of the social enterprise sector might look like and act, (and the evolving nature of the types of organisations that make it up), also proved popular (including my extolling the virtues of McDonalds, as an inspiring example that social enterprises should seek to imitate!)

 

Going out of my way to make trouble/try and help

Although my unpaid caring responsibilities now mean that I'm not able to offer as much pro bono, or get involved with events and initiatives as much as I could and did in previous years, I've continued to try and spot and create ways in which I can use my business and voice to influence and encourage others, so that they in turn can amplify this through other channels.

This year, theRSA offered me a Life Fellowship, in recognition of my 'extra curricular' efforts to positively influence the wider ecosystems of policy makers, investors, and infrastructure bodies, that support enterprises of all types; and the Community Foundation for Calderdale recognised me as an "outstanding individual" in recognition for how I've stretched the way my business works to maximise the potential impacts and benefits it can create for the wider local community and economy in contributing to them becoming more resilient and inclusive.

But that's what I think I'm aware of, on the basis of the points in my year that the internet tells me that I've caught the most interest and imagination of others, because of what I was (trying to) do to at the time.

What's been the biggest thing I've done this year, that meant you were glad that I was part of yours?