Herrmann Certified Practitioners’ Facilitator Guide HBDI ...resources.herrmannsolutions.com.au/resources/FG... · The Originators of Whole Brain Technology® and the Creators of

111011-24

The Originators of Whole Brain Technology® and the Creators of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument® (HBDI®) PO Box 383 Pymble NSW 2073 Sydney Australia Phone: 61-2-9880-2333 Fax: 61-2-9880-2343

Herrmann International Asia Pty. Limited ABN 96 069 721 384www.herrmannsolutions.asia

Herrmann® Certified Practitioners’

Facilitator Guide

Understanding the

HBDI® Team Profile

©Copyright Herrmann International Asia 2004

Herrmann® CertifiedHerrmann Brain Dominance Instrument®

221011-24

NotesTable of Contents

Module at a glance .......................................................3

Preparation checklist ....................................................4

Flip charts .......................................................................5

Icon legend ....................................................................6

Unit description/Learning objectives .........................7

Facilitator guide for this module1. Module introduction ............................................................... 9

2. Graphic Presentation of Composite Profile ........................ 11

3. Graphic Presentation of Average Profile ............................ 13

4. Rank Order of Team Preferences by Quadrant .................. 16

5. Process Flow of Preferences ................................................. 18

6. Profile Results: List of Scores .................................................20

7. Preference Map .......................................................................22

8. Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairs ...............................24

9. Work Elements by Quadrant.................................................25

10 Rank Order of Work Elements ..............................................27

11. Key Descriptors by Quadrant ...............................................29

12. Rank Order of Key Descriptors ............................................31

13. Adjective Pairs Comparison .................................................32

14. Twenty Questions Comparison ...........................................33

15. Conclusions ............................................................................34

331011-24

Notes

Each section focuses on a specific report in the team package. The specific 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

Module at a glance

Unit Time Page Description/Purpose

Introduction 10 mins 9

Review of 5 mins 10 Whole Brain Model

Graphic Presentation 10 mins 11 of Composite Profile

Graphic Presentation 10 mins 13 of Average Profile

Rank Order of 10 mins 16 Team Preferences by Quadrant

Process Flow of 10 mins 18 Preferences

Profile Results: 10 mins 20 List of Scores

Preference 10 mins 22 Map

Preference Map Scores/ 10 mins 24 Adjective Pairs

Work Elements 10 mins 25 by Quadrant

Rank Order of 10 mins 27 Work Elements

Key Descriptors 10 mins 29 by Quadrant

Rank Order of 10 mins 31 Key Descriptors

Adjective Pairs 10 mins 32Comparison

Twenty Questions 10 mins 33 Comparison

Total Time 125 mins

441011-24

NotesPreparation checklist

� ASSEMBLE these materials before conducting the workshop

HBDI Team Packages for each participant, if appropriate

Team profile package to leave with the team leader for ongoing use

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

Workshop evaluations

Miscellaneous materials (coloured paper, one or more flipcharts, pens, pencils, markers, masking tape, etc)

Toys etc to create the learning environment

NOTE: This session assumes that the participants have, at minimum, attended a Start Thinking workshop or have received an in-depth debrief of their HBDI Profile.

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

Any logistical information on timing, venue, start times etc

Pre-course reading:

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

� REVIEW the content of the following material

This facilitator guide

Individual Participant HBDI Profiles

Team Profile package for the group

� PREPARE the following

Seating arrangements according to the participants’ profiles

Room layout—U-shaped

Facility arrangements, A/V equipment and miscellaneous materials

Agenda including breaks

551011-24

NotesFlip charts

Unit 1 Welcome

Agenda

Parking lot

Welcometo

Team Think

Agenda / Timings

Parking Lot

661011-24

NotesIcon legend

Facilitator Lead Discussion

Overhead Projector

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.

771011-24

NotesUnit description/Learning objectives

NOTE This module must be facilitated by a Herrmann Certified 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 benefit to the group:

� Use with an intact work group

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

� The session should only be run once all individuals have received their own profiles 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 reflect on the team profile

� This session is best used with a specific 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

� 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 specific 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 effective 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 different thinking styles

� assists management by creating understanding of the implications of differing thinking styles.

881011-24

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

The session is particularly effective in the following scenarios:

� A newly created team which is charged with a project. In this case, early use of the profiles will serve as a fast track way of creating effective 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 effectiveness

The HBDI Team Profile consists of the following profiles and charts: � Composite Profile � Average Profile � Process Flow of Preferences � Profile Results: List of Scores � Preference Map � Scores/Adjective Pairs � Work Element by Quadrant � Rank Order of Work Elements � Key Descriptors by Quadrant � Rank Order of Key Descriptors � Adjective Pairs Comparison � 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 efficiency of the participants as they operate as an intact team.

All the information in this report is derived from the individual HBDI Profiles of the participants. Since the individual information is always treated as confidential, great care has been and needs to be taken to maintain the confidentiality of the information of individuals. As a consequence, individual profiles 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.

991011-24

Notes1. 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 Profile, if appropriate.

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

Module contents—1 minutes

STATE the objectives:

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

� To understand the implications of the Team Profile.

STRESS that applying the knowledge of maximising 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 fits into any other work you are doing with the team, or the organisation.

Parking lot—1 minute

INTRODUCE the parking lot.

SAY: � Parking Lot is actually a flipchart 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 ...

10101011-24

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 Profile.

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 organisations in general.

11111011-24

NotesGraphic presentation of Composite Profile

Segment overview/Description and learning objectives

The Group Composite Profile is an overlay of each individual’s HBDI Profile on the profile 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 Profile—10 minutes

HANDOUT the Team Profile to each participant, if appropriate.

REFER participants to the first few pages and EXPLAIN what the Team Profile contains.

REFER participants to the Composite Team Profile page.

SHOW the slide ‘Composite Team Profile’

Graphic Presentation of Average Profile

Profile Scores Adjective Pairs

HBDI™ Team Profile - © 2007 The Ned Herrmann Group, Inc. - Herrmann Sample Team Pack Page 5/16

Thinkers Innovators

Organisers Database Average Humanitarians

Strong Preference

Intermediate Preference

Low Preference

A

B C

D57

64 90

90

factual

quantitative

critical

rational

mathematical

logical

analytical

imaginative

artistic

intuitive

holistic

synthesiser

simultaneous

spatial

reader

speaker

dominant

detailed

sequential

controlled

conservative

reader

talker

intuitive

symbolic

spiritual

musical

emotional

40%Left

Mode60%

Right

Mode

49%

Upper Mode

51%

Lower Mode

TELL participants that this is a profile which plots all the individual profiles.

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 ring shows an avoidance or low preference and the individual will actively avoid thinking in that quadrant.

EXPLAIN the left right modes and scores.

EXPLAIN the upper and lower mode scores.

TRACE the profiles maps of each of the individuals—asking them to refer to their own profiles.

12121011-24

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 discussionLEAD 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—profiles with strong preference scores over 100 and other profiles 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 conflict or stress.

� Quadrants where the range of preference is narrow can be quadrants where the group experiences ‘group think’—a benefit 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 different situations and challenges.

13131011-24

NotesGraphic Presentation of Average Profile


The solid black line diagram shows the average of the overall group/team preferences for each quadrant. The dotted line diagram shows the average of the Adjective Pairs scores for each quadrant. The Adjective Pairs scores show how a 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 Profile grid. The average profile can highlight the degree of similarity and/or difference between each of the four quadrants that may translate into a significant 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).

3. Average Team Profile—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Average Team Profile report.

SHOW the slide ‘Average Team Profile’

Graphic Presentation of Average Profile

Profile Scores Adjective Pairs


Thinkers Innovators

Organisers Database Average Humanitarians

Strong Preference

Intermediate Preference

Low Preference

A

B C

D57

64 90

90

factual

quantitative

critical

rational

mathematical

logical

analytical

imaginative

artistic

intuitive

holistic

synthesiser

simultaneous

spatial

reader

speaker

dominant

detailed

sequential

controlled

conservative

reader

talker

intuitive

symbolic

spiritual

musical

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 (ie this team) the graph will show a skew reflecting the strength of the various profiles.

EXPLAIN the various profiles in each corner:

� Thinkers: this shows a typical profile for someone with strong A quadrant preferences.

� Organisers: this shows a typical profile for someone with strong B quadrant preferences.

� Humanitarians: this shows a typical profile for someone with strong C quadrant preferences.

� Innovators: this is shows a typical profile for someone with strong D quadrant preferences.

14141011-24

NotesFacilitator Led discussionLEAD 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 difference 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 profile ‘balanced’ with scores in all quadrants within 6-8 points of each other?

� If this is a ‘balanced’ profile, 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:

� Differences of more that 20 points between quadrants can be significant.

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

15151011-24

Notes � Homogeneous teams that are comprised of mostly balanced

profiles will often experience good coverage of styles across the model, with effective communication, but also may represent a lack of specialised thinking where it may be needed.

� More heterogeneous teams comprised of very different profiles will have the opportunity to benefit from the broader spectrum of specialised thinking preferences but may suffer from some miscommunication between team members.

16161011-24

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 reflects 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 report.

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 difference between the quadrants affects the flow 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 difference between the quadrant scores, the more likely they will get stuck in the higher of the two quadrants.


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 reflect or impact the priorities of the team?

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

17171011-24

Notes � What are the implications for your effectiveness? Are there

areas you never ‘get to’ or that create problems for the group? How might you better address those?


� 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 confirm 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.

18181011-24

NotesProcess Flow of Preferences

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesThis top display shows the flow of preferences from most preferred to least preferred. The lower graphic uses the Adjective Pairs data to show the flow of preferences when the team is under pressure. The two preference flows may be different. 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 report.

SHOW the slide ‘Process Flow of Preferences’

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 alternate

flow of preferences according to the

Adjective Pairs section average

results.

The Adjective Pairs result tells us

something about how we react when

under pressure.

This may or may not be consistent

with the general behavior of this team.

A D

B C

EXPLAIN that the slide shows the flow of preferences from one quadrant to another.

EXPLAIN that the top diagram shows the flow of preferences based on the profile average. The bottom diagram shows the flow of preferences based on the Adjective Pairs.

EXPLAIN the percentage figures indicate the percentage score for each quadrant—and indicate 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 flow compare with the flow under pressure (eg Adjective Pairs)?

� Where does this team go under pressure?


� Small differences between quadrants will not significantly impact the flow of work or the priorities of the team.

19191011-24

Notes � Big differences of 12 points or more will see an impact on the

flow 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 effectiveness 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.

20201011-24

NotesProfile Results: List of Scores

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesThis detailed list provides comprehensive profile information in numeric form, listing the A, B, C and D scores for each participant. It also lists the individuals’ introvert/extrovert scores. These are taken from question number 100 on the HBDI.

This list is organised by quadrant preference, going from most left to most right HBDI preference scores. Included in the HBDI Team Profile is a list of participants names and number. Participants can usually find their profile in the list without having to refer to this 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. Profile Results: List of Scores—10 minutes

REFER participants to the tabulated scores page.

SHOW the slide ’Tabulated 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 78

Average 57 64 90 90 6

Min 24 35 57 45 2

Max 87 90 137 150 8

Std. dev. 19.8 17.2 22.6 29.5 1.8

Med. 54 65 83 92 7

Range 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.

21211011-24

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?

Points to bring out during the discussion of this report if they apply to this 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 different, 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 specialised 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.

22221011-24

NotesPreference Map

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

This shows how each individual profile is similar or different from the position of the other profiles on the team. This helps show how heterogeneous or homogeneous the team is.

‘Mini-tribes’ or clusters of similar preference are easily identified. If two or more profiles are in close proximity on the map, those individuals will often demonstrate similar thinking preferences—perhaps even ‘groupthink’. Profiles that are a great distance apart will display very differing preferences.

7. Preference Map—10 minutes

REFER participants to the Preference Map report.

SHOW the slide ‘Preference Map’

Preference Map


A

B C

Dfactual

quantitative

critical

rational

mathematical

logical

analytical

imaginative

artistic

intuitive

holistic

synthesiser

simultaneous

spatial

reader

speaker

dominant

detailed

sequential

controlled

conservative

reader

talker

intuitive

symbolic

spiritual

musical

emotional

Introvert Extrovert

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

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 profiles:

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)?

� Are there loners (profiles that are alone/separate from the other profiles 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)?

23231011-24

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

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

� Those who are more multi-dominant and balanced are found in the centre 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 profiles 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 confidential data if you share the Preference Map with the group, who will recognise 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 confidential data.

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

24241011-24

NotesScores/Adjective Pairs

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesThis 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. Scores/Adjective Pairs—10 minutesREFER participant to Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairsreport.

SHOW the slide ‘Preference Map Scores/Adjective Pairs’

Scores

Scores / Adjective Pairs

Adjective Pairs


A

B C

D

A

B C

D

factual

quantitative

critical

rational

mathematical

logical

analytical

imaginative

artistic

intuitive

holistic

synthesiser

simultaneous

spatial

reader

speaker

dominant

detailed

sequential

controlled

conservative

reader

talker

intuitive

symbolic

spiritual

musical

emotional

factual

quantitative

critical

rational

mathematical

logical

analytical

imaginative

artistic

intuitive

holistic

synthesiser

simultaneous

spatial

reader

speaker

dominant

detailed

sequential

controlled

conservative

reader

talker

intuitive

symbolic

spiritual

musical

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

EXPLAIN that the report shows 2 views of the data. The top one is based on the profile scores, the bottom one is based on the Adjective Pairs scores.

EXPLAIN that this shows how the team may behave under stress.

Facilitator led discussionLEAD 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 differences between the team under stress and the team when it isn’t under stress?


� The profiles on the Adjective Pairs Preference Map often seem to ‘explode outward’ in comparison to the regular Preference Map. You can explain this by reminding participants that under stress, profiles often shift toward quadrants of stronger preference, which can accentuate the differences between profiles.

� 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.

25251011-24

NotesWork Elements by Quadrant

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesThe Work Elements section of the HBDI Survey Form asks the individual to rank Work Elements from 1 to 5, with. 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.

9. Work Elements by Quadrant—10 minutes

REFER participant to Work Elements by Quadrant report.

SHOW the slide ‘Work Elements by Quadrant’

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.

26261011-24

NotesSpecifically 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 quadrant’s relative weakness, which may have individual elements which are strong

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


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 across all four quadrants. Thus, the first bars for analytical, technical, problem solving, financial 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 avoided or made a very low priority.

27271011-24

NotesRank Order of Work Elements

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesBy averaging and rank ordering the rating of each Work Element, you will be able to immediately recognise the strengths of the group. You will also readily recognise areas of lesser preference.

10. Rank Order of Work Elements—10 mins

REFER participants to Work Elements by Rank Order report.

SHOW the slide ‘Work Elements by Rank Order’

Rank Order of Work Elements


technical

financial

administrative

planning

organisation

creative

innovating

implementation

conceptualising

analytical

writing

integration

expressing

problem solving

teaching

interpersonal

1 2 3 4 5

Averages

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.


� 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 colours 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 tends to avoid certain elements.

Specifically 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.

28281011-24

NotesFacilitator led discussionLEAD a discussion on the following points:

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?

� What are the implications?

� How do the preferred Work Elements align with the team’s tasks?


� 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 as work. Key Descriptors reflect a person’s more general assessment of their preferences which includes both work and the rest of their life.

29291011-24

NotesKey Descriptors by Quadrant

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesIn 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 reflect individuals’ more general description of themselves.

11. Key Descriptors by Quadrant—10 minutes

REFER participants to Key Descriptors by Quadrant report.

SHOW the slide ‘Key Descriptor by Quadrant’

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

B C

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

� specific quadrants compared to other quadrants; is there an 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 identified as most descriptive? How can those impact a team or work group?

30301011-24

Notes � How do the Key Descriptors compare with the Work Elements? Are there areas where participants have identified preferences in their Key Descriptors that are not reflected 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?


� 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 differences 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 reflect preferences that are being satisfied 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 reflect 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.

31311011-24

NotesRank Order of Key Descriptors

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesThe rank ordering of Key Descriptors shows which descriptors were selected more than others and which descriptors were not selected at all. The bars are colour coded by quadrant for easy identification.

12. Rank Order of Key Descriptors—10 minutes

REFER participants to Rank Order of Key Descriptors report.

SHOW the slide ‘Rank Order of Key Descriptors’

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

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


� which Key Descriptors are rated the strongest

� which are rated the weakest

� which quadrants have the strongest preferences

� which quadrants have the lowest preferences

� what are the implications

� how do the preferred Work Elements align with the team’s tasks.

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?

32321011-24

NotesAdjective Pairs Comparison

Segment overview/Description and learning objectivesThe Adjective Pairs comparison shows which Adjective Pair was selected by the group.

13. Adjective Pairs Comparison—10 minutes

REFER participants to Adjective Pairs Comparison report.

SHOW the slide ‘Adjective Pairs Comparison’’

Adjective Pairs Comparison


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

EXPLAIN that the bars are colour coded by quadrant for easy identification. The % figures 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?

� Which of those selections might be significant?

� Where are the areas of potential conflict? 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 select and the implications.

� Adjectives which have been equally selected and the implications.

� The Adjective Pairs reflect how the group may think under pressure .

33331011-24

NotesTwenty Question ComparisonSegment overview/Description and learning objectivesThe Twenty Question comparison shows how the group answered each question. The % figures along the top of each question indicate the % of the team that made that particular selection. For example, if there is a figure of 5% at the ‘strongly agree’ end, that indicates that 5% of the group selected ‘strongly agree’. The % figures 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 report.

SHOW the slide ‘Twenty Question Comparison’’

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

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


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 of those selections might be significant?

� Which questions are more significant than others?

� Which questions are not so important?

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


� Those questions where the team strongly agree with or disagree.

� Those questions where the team does not mind.

34341011-24

NotesConclusions

Once you’ve analysed the Team Profile you have a good idea of the key points you’d like to bring out from the different 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 find a balance that works for the whole group. While the HBDI Team Profile 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 effectively address those challenges.

Documents

Herrmann Certified Practitioners’ Facilitator Guide HBDI ...resources.herrmannsolutions.com.au/resources/FG... · The Originators of Whole Brain Technology® and the Creators of