It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This is a question I've been pondering a lot lately. It's very easy to grow up thinking everyone else is just like us, and it's often a rude awakening when we realize people are wired differently! I've noticed that when teams use assessments for self-awareness, there's a tendency to believe one way of being is better than another (and not just in the sense someone thinks they're better than someone else, but even others thinking, "I wish I was more ___ like so-and-so.")
Specific example: I was working with a group of people who took Les McKeown's Synergist quiz. He has four types: Visionaries (big picture idea people), Operators (doers), Processors (systems thinkers), and Synergists (team-oriented). There's value in each of these types, but the group started pointing fingers. Operators judged Processors and Visionaries for not being as good at "doing." Processors judged Operators and Visionaries for flying by the seat of their pants. And so on. What was meant to be a productive activity ended up being a way to pigeonhole and judge people for being different.
How do you help people realize that each behavioral pattern is good? That one's not inherently better than the other and it depends entirely on the company, the role, the team, the time, etc.? Is this just human nature or can you fight that tendency?