In response to Mary Jones inquiry concerning the combined use of the two instruments, replies were received from: Bert Mines, Michael Watte, David Fisher, Ian Butcher and Michael Walton. If this sample is representative, then only a few of the licensees are using both instruments. Ian Butcher, in fact is using Honey’s Learning Styles, the LIFOŽ Life Orientation Survey, the MBTI and Belbin and has produced an interesting table, outlining the major descriptive terms of each. His address is WTI of Training Group, WTI Tadley Court, Tadley Basingstoke, Hampshire RG26 3TB.
From the experience of licensees in the States reported by Atkins, the main advantage is broadening the coverage of dimensions of personal functioning and thus gaining more understanding of self and others. This enables the individual to relate behaviour from many areas and see patterns of interaction of the dimensions. Both instruments are relatively non-judgmental and provide reasonably rich descriptions of behaviour. I feel the LIFO system is easier to use in couple and group situations simply because the number of dimensions is less and the language is more directly understood. Each method covers considerable ground and. with intuitive use might readily overlap each other. However, the different question sampling produces information more efficiently about the areas of special interest. In a way, the use of the different LIFO surveys produces an analogous result.
For example, one can find tendencies toward Extroversive behaviour most dominant in Controlling-Taking and Adapting-Dealing orientations, especially the combination. Introversive behaviour is more frequently associated with Supporting-Giving and Conserving-Holding ones, although these could be modified with the addition of high Adapting-Dealing orientations. Intuitive thinking is more associated with Supporting-Giving and Adapting-Dealing orientations. It is somewhat moderate in the Controlling-Taking area and, as one can readily identify, analytical modes of thinking are highest in those who emphasize the Conserving-Holding orientation. Judgmental modes are most associated with Supporting-Giving and Controlling-Taking – Feeling would be highest in Adapting-Dealing and Supporting-Giving, lowest in the Conserving-Holding, and moderate in the Controlling-Taking. In short, translations can be made, but perhaps without the refinements that are added through the formal structuring and focus of the other instrument.
We also know that the questions in role situations (Learning style, Selling Style, Stress Style, etc.) also modify the picture one receives and provide more specifics about the individual’s functioning in those situations, heightening the predictive accuracy. While similarities exist, some surprising variations occur as one moves from the LOS profile to others. While I may be emphasizing Controlling-Taking and Supporting-Giving modes in the LOS, my learning style becomes much more Conserving-Holding, although my teaching style appears to be very similar to my LOS style. As I have pointed out elsewhere, this use of multiple surveys allows us to recognize the possibilities for change by observing differential use of behaviours. It remains to discover where the behaviour is exhibited and by understanding the reasons for its use to create metaphorical an analogies that will facilitate transfer.
Whenever I am required to assess a person, whether for selection, promotion or special assignment, I use the LIFOŽ surveys but also use other instruments as well to provide the fullest picture possible. I feel that in seminars this can also be useful, save for introducing too many in the one training period. It takes awhile to fully integrate any one system, let alone have to do that with four systems whose languages are so diverse. One of my clients ran a week-long management seminar which included the LIFE Orientation Survey, FIRO-B and FIRO-F, the Management Grid and the MBTI. Student objections concerning the difficulty of keeping each system clear forced the designers to use only two during that seminar and use the others in separate ones. As you may have discovered, in very short seminars one finds students who cannot even identify the four orientations properly.
Stuart Atkins and I will continue to sample usage among the licensees and report to you periodically. At the LIFOŽ International Users Conference in Kyoto, April 6 and 7, 1998, we will present a more formal and systematic paper on this topic. We also want to encourage you to keep use informed about your experiences.