Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) is a system claimed to measure and describe thinking preferences in people, developed by William "Ned" Herrmann while leading management education at General Electric's Crotonville facility. It is a type of cognitive style measurement and model similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,[1][2] Learning Orientation Questionnaire,[3] DISC assessment,[4] and others.[5]

Contents

[edit] Brain Dominance Model

In his brain dominance model, Herrmann identifies four different modes of thinking:

  • A. Analytical thinking
Key words : logical, factual, critical, technical and quantitative.
Preferred activities : collecting data, analysis, understanding how things work, judging ideas based on facts, criteria and logical reasoning.
  • B. Sequential thinking
Key words : safekeeping, structured, organized, complexity or detailed, planned.
Preferred activities : following directions, detail oriented work, step-by-step problem solving, organization and implementation.
  • C. Interpersonal thinking
Key words : kinesthetic, emotional, spiritual, sensory, feeling.
Preferred activities : listening to and expressing ideas, looking for personal meaning, sensory input, and group interaction.
  • D. Imaginative thinking
Key words : Visual, holistic, intuitive, innovative, and conceptual.
Preferred activities : Looking at the big picture, taking initiative, challenging assumptions, visuals, metaphoric thinking, creative problem solving, long term thinking.

His theory was inspired by the research into left-right brain laterilization by Roger Wolcott Sperry, Robert Ornstein, Henry Mintzberg, and Michael Gazzaniga[6] and further developed to reflect a metaphor for how individuals think and learn. Use of that metaphor brought later criticism by brain researchers such as Terence Hines for being over simplistic.

Herrmann also coined the concept Whole Brain Thinking as a description of flexibility in using thinking styles that one may cultivate in individuals or in organizations allowing the situational use of all four styles of thinking.[7]

[edit] The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

The format of the instrument is a 120 question pencil and paper test which claims to determine which of the model's four styles of thinking is a dominant preference. More than one style may be dominant at once in this model.[8][9] For example, in Herrmann's presentation a person may be dominant in both analytical and sequential styles of thinking but be weaker in interpersonal or imaginative modes, though he asserts all people use all styles to varying degrees.

A 1985 dissertation by C. Bunderson, currently CEO of the non-profit EduMetrics Institute which has an ongoing business relationship with Herrmann International,[10] is published on the Herrmann International website. It asserts that "four stable, discrete clusters of preference exist", "scores derived from the instrument are valid indicators of the four clusters", and "The scores permit valid inferences about a person's preferences and avoidances for each of these clusters of mental activity".[11]

[edit] Training

Based on the instrument and model, organizations such as Herrmann International and Herrmann Institute offer programs, books, games, and coaching claiming to improve personal or group communication, creativity, and other benefits.[12][13]

[edit] Critical reviews

Researchers C. W. Allinson and J. Hayes, in their own 1996 publication of a competing cognitive style indicator called Cognitive Style Index[14] in the peer reviewed Journal of Management Studies, noted that "there appears to be little or no published independent evaluation of several self-report measures developed as management training tools. [including] Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument."[15] In 2003 researchers G.P. Hodgkinson and E. Sadler-Smith in a critique of the Cognitive Style Index indicator opined that progress in the field had been "hampered by a proliferation of alternative constructs and assessment instruments" many unreliable with a lack of agreement over nomenclature.[14] To measure self-report consistency, a differential item functioning review of Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument was published in 2007 by Jared Lees. However, his tests were supported by EduMetrics, a company on contract with Herrmann International to evaluate the system, and were therefore not completely independent.[16]

In publications from Herrmann International, such as Ann Herrmann-Nehdi's on Coaching with Style from 2003,[17] the terms "right brain" and "left brain" are used to categorize the four thinking styles. Analytical and sequential styles are associated with left brain and interpersonal and imaginative styles are associated with right brain. In later papers by Ned Herrmann, such as the 1999 summary The Theory Behind the HBDI® and Whole Brain® Technology, Herrmann associates dominance of a particular thinking style with dominance with a portion of a brain hemisphere.[18] Associating thinking style dominance with brain hemisphere dominance has brought criticism of the system.

In a 1985 article in Training & Development Journal, Terence Hines described right-brain/left-brain research as "pop psychology" and a "mythology" contradicted by then current brain research. Current literature he said instead found that both hemispheres are always involved in cognitive tasks.[19] Then later in a 1987 paper, he further characterized research on hemispheric differences that claimed "practical implications for management and training practices" as a mythology.[20] However, this is different from later claims by Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith that specifically mention cognitive style indicators generally as increasingly useful for studying organizations.[14]

But in the 1987 paper, Hines specifically critiques the HBDI as asserting hemisphere dominance based on unpublished and questionable EEG data. Hines believed that Herrmann "bases his program on the assumption that the left brain is logical and the right brain is intuitive, insightful, and creative. According to this view, creativity can be enhanced through special training of the right hemisphere."[21] Hines disagrees with that as overly simplistic. In another critique in 1991, exemplary though not specifically about HBDI, Hines found fault with the claim that teaching sign language was a way to strengthen the right hemisphere and thereby improve creativity overall.[22]

Hines noted that no evidence by 1987 had been published that substantiated claims made by Herrmann that HBDI is reliable and valid as a measure of brain hemisphere dominance, even were the assumption to be made that studies of hemispheric dominance had practical implications for management and training practices[9]. Hines stated "No evidence is presented to show that these 'brain dominance measures' measure anything related to the differences between the two hemispheres. In other words, no evidence of validity [of hemisphere dominance] is presented."[9] Despite this Hines pointed out that Herrmann offered "popular and expensive applied creativity workshops"[21] to unlock right-brain potential which according to McKean in 1985 cost $2000 for a half-day seminar.[23]

However, a study published in the peer reviewed Creativity Research Journal in 2005 by J. Meneely and M. Portillo did find correlation between creativity in design students based on how flexible they were using all four thinking styles of the Herrmann brain dominance model. They found no correlation between specific thinking styles in the model and creativity, such as a right-brain dominance producing more creativity, but when students were less entrenched in a specific style of thinking they measured higher creativity using Domino’s Creativity Scale (ACL-Cr).[24]

[edit] References

  1. ^ DeWald, R. E. (1989) abstract
  2. ^ Krause, M. G. (1987, June) abstract
  3. ^ Bentley and Hall (2001) p.3961
  4. ^ Wilson (2007) pp. 1079
  5. ^ Deardorff, Dale S. (2005) p.1
  6. ^ European Herrmann Institute FAQ
  7. ^ Herrmann, Ned (1999) pp.1-3
  8. ^ Lees (2007) pp.11-15
  9. ^ a b c Terence (1987) p.604
  10. ^ Lees (2007) p.32
  11. ^ C. Victor Bunderson, 'Dissertation: The Validity of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument', published by Herrmann International, 1985
  12. ^ Herrmann International web site
  13. ^ Herrmann Institute web site
  14. ^ a b c Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) pp.1-2
  15. ^ Allinson & Hayes (1996) pp. 119-135.
  16. ^ Lees (2007) pp.20,32
  17. ^ Herrmann-Nehdi, Ann (2003) Coaching With Style
  18. ^ Herrmann, Ned (1999) pp.1-3
  19. ^ Hines (1985) p.1
  20. ^ Terence Hines (1987) p.600
  21. ^ a b Hines (1987) p.603
  22. ^ Hines (1991) pp. 223-227
  23. ^ McKean (1985) Discover pp.30-41.
  24. ^ Meneely and Portillo (2005) p.1
  • Allinson, C.W., & Hayes, J. (1996) 'Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research', Journal of Management Studies, 33:1 January 1996
  • Bentley, Joanne and Hall, Pamela (2001) Learning Orientation Questionnaire correlation with the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: A validity study Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 61(10-A), Apr 2001. pp. 3961.
  • Deardorff, Dale S. (2005) An exploratory case study of leadership influences on innovative culture: A descriptive study Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 66(4-B), 2005. pp. 2338.
  • DeWald, R. E. (1989). Relationships of MBTI types and HBDI preferences in a population of student program managers (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(06), 2657B. (University Microfilms No. AAC89-21867)
  • Herrmann, Ned (1999) The Theory Behind the HBDI® and Whole Brain® Technology pdf
  • Hines, Terence (1991) 'The myth of right hemisphere creativity.' Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol 25(3), 1991. pp. 223-227.
  • Hines, Terence (1987) 'Left Brain/Right Brain Mythology and Implications for Management and Training', The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, October 1987
  • Hines, Terence (1985) 'Left brain, right brain: Who's on first?' Training & Development Journal, Vol 39(11), Nov 1985. pp. 32-34. [Journal Article]
  • Hodgkinson, Gerard P., and Sadler-Smith, Eugene (2003) Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index., Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 09631798, 20030601, Vol. 76, Issue 2
  • Holland, Paul W. and Wainer, Howard (1993) Differential Item Functioning ISDN 0-80580-972-4
  • Krause, M. G. (1987, June). A comparison of the MBTI and the Herrmann Participant Survey. Handout from presentation at APT-VII, the Seventh Biennial International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL.
  • Lees, Jared A. (2007) Differential Item Functioning Analysis of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument Masters Thesis, Brigham Young University - pdf
  • McKean, K. (1985) 'Of two minds: Selling the right brain.', Discover, 6(4), pp.30-41.
  • Meneely, Jason; and Portillo, Margaret; (2005) The Adaptable Mind in Design: Relating Personality, Cognitive Style, and Creative Performance. Creativity Research Journal, Vol 17(2-3), 2005. pp. 155-166. [Journal Article]
  • Wilson, Dennis H. (2007) A comparison of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument(TM) and the extended DISCMRTM behavior profiling tool: An attempt to create a more discerning management perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 68(3-A). pp. 1079.

[edit] Further reading

Languages