After years in the industry and repeatedly involved in various psychological business decisions, any psycho-related approach seems to me to be very imprecise at best.
In fact, it is even inconsistent. On the one hand, the individual and diversity are repeatedly emphasized, and on the other hand, they are categorized and pigeonholed. People have to conform to certain types and templates are placed over everything.
In some cases it is more efficient to pick random people on the street and chat to them over coffee.
The lack of clarity becomes particularly clear in team descriptions and workshops, personality tests, etc
ENTP vs ESTJ etc.
Who is better…
And if various methodologies also try to cross-integrate themselves… pure chaos.
But it is ignored that in addition to introverts and extroverts, there are also ambiverts and omniverts. I am sure that there are also xenoverts and protoverts btw.
In any case, it makes it too easy to just open a drawer. Label it and close it.
You are sorted out as a certain type and robbed of your possibilities.
Almost like astrology: “Scorpions are difficult, they can’t do that, Pisces would be better.”
And have you noticed lately how often people say someone is a narcissist?
The remaining guidelines, development workshops, HR discussions remind me of homeopathy.
Yes, not too much, nothing that helps, doesn’t address the cause, just pretend.
Where is the thinking outside of the box when it comes to people?
BE outside of the box.
Maybe it’s the linear causal thinking that still characterizes many experts.
But even the systemic constructivist approach struggles to depict the individual, let alone understand it.
Psychology is not a cumulative and progressive discipline, and must be constantly questioned.
The knowledge acquired by one generation of researchers is refuted in its assumptions by the next generation.
Sigmund Koch put it this way: “The great generalizations of psychology have not been refined or specified by time and effort. They have continually been replaced by new ones.”
Psychology is questionable because it tries to explain and analyze people’s personalities with the help of theories and theoretical constructs in order to evaluate them in a performance-appropriate manner in the work context.
Here we leave the ground of value neutrality because it cannot do without ideological axioms.
In addition, all personality models suffer from the weakness that they are far too one-sided to do justice to the complexity of people. It is very naive to assume that people can be understood and described as a whole.
There can hardly be any doubt that, over the course of its long history, psychological research has been able to reveal a number of interesting and life-relevant connections, which can also be verified experimentally and which contribute to the understanding of the development of personal and social conflicts and the individual lifestyle of the individual. As long as psychology operates on the descriptive level, its statements are useful. As a tool that must be viewed in context.
But unfortunately, in its attempt to be recognized as a science in the sense of the natural sciences, psychology has become more and more committed to an extreme method fetishism. In laboratory experiments one tries to bring all effective variables under control, but usually only accumulates useless pseudo-knowledge.
There is an army of grandfathers and grandmothers who offer better advice than the army of psycho-experts.