Do you have an Impact Measurement personality type?
15th June 2011
I’m starting to wonder whether some us are heavily disposed towards impact measurement, some of us are allergic to it, and some of us can take it or leave it. Here’s a snippet from a strategy away day that I was facilitating the other day.
“Just because we can’t measure it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t aim to achieve it!” replied her colleague, the Director of Programmes, also starting to raise his voice.
I was on the side of the Director of Programmes, but I was also on the side of a bit of peace and love over lunch, a rest from the (wholesome) conflict and debate that was characterising this strategy day. “Looks like it’s about to tip it down.” I nodded towards the window through which the heavy clouds were darkening but my attempt to move the conversation onwards failed and the argument continued.
I must have had or heard this debate over a hundred times in the last fifteen years. I’ve developed a clear position on this for NCVO (http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/strategy-impact/six-impact-activities). Impact is there to be planned, to be improved, to be communicated, to be a lens for leadership and organisational life, and, yes, it also often needs to be assessed (or as lots of people say, ‘measured’). When planning impact, or communicating it, issues of measurement can be and should be kept at arms-length, to be brought back in again when needed.
When I run training courses or workshops on impact, most people agree with this position. And many people say they feel relieved or even excited that we are opening up the impact topic beyond measurement. But there’s always a few people who disagree, insisting that impact is all about measurement. There’s no obvious pattern to who these people are – they can be younger or older, male or female, Heads of Risk and Audit or frontline workers or trustees or managers, people from the international development or the domestic charity sector, or those with a private, public or voluntary sector career history. What’s going on?
Now, I’ve got time and respect for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) approach which is about people’s deeply-held preferences and the ways that “much seemingly random variation in [our] behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment” (for a good, official introduction see MBTI Basics).
I know my preference type (ENFP for the curious amongst you) and I’m starting to wonder whether these debates and differences about measuring impact are deeper than just different opinions and might map onto people’s MBTI preferences. In fact, that’s my hypothesis.
Want to help test it? I’ve set up a really simple (two question) online survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3Y7N6HB
There’s information there on how to find out your Myers-Briggs personality type.
Fill in the survey. Get your colleagues to do it too and see whether they agree with you about impact measurement. And, if you wish, we’ll e-mail the findings (if we get enough responses) directly to your inbox.
Richard Piper, NCVO’s impact expert
- Richard Piper's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Like this? Read more
Richard Piper writes about impact, strategy, leadership and change. He's the CEO at Roald Dahl's Marvellous Children's Charity.
12/9/2011
Comments
Good stuff. Except in my experience Myers-Briggs is itself not a clear measurement. Each time I've done Myers-Briggs my result has been slightly different (eg INTP changing to ENTP) which shouldn't happen if it reflects deep preferences.
Which makes me cautious of basing anything on my response to your survey!
Possible explanations for my Myers-Briggs variation are:
1. Our deep preferences change over time.
2. Our self-awareness increases over time.
3. MBTI self-reporting is influenced by your current job, as when faced with the questions you tend to think about them in that context, then reply accordingly.