I would argue that the most prominent classification system for personality types is the Meyers-Briggs classification system, which relies on the categories of Introversion/Extroversion, Intuitive/Sensing Feeling/Thinking, Perceiving/Judging. From these categories, we get 16 "types":
- INFP
- INTP
- INFJ
- INTJ
- ISFP
- ISTP
- ISFJ
- ISTJ
- ENFP
- ENTP
- ENFJ
- ENTJ
- ESFP
- ESTP
- ESFJ
- ESTJ
In my training department, rather than talking about personality types, which are more the realm of psychology, we talk about communication styles. And communication intersects neatly with teaching, training, and rhetoric. Not only does our department (but not me personally) teach these communication styles so that people who take the class can learn how to communicate more effectively with others in their offices, communication is intrinsic to training and to teaching--and, well, rhetoric (an erstwhile specialty of mine) is communication, and knowing how to communicate to/with an audience. Adding a self-reflective layer and a way to understand one's intended audience can only be helpful, particularly for Freshman comp and for students who do not already have a knack for targeting a specific audience effectively. The communication styles that we discuss in our training department are called "the four bird mode" or, quite ridiculously, "DOPE," which stands for
- Dove
- Owl
- Peacock
- Eagle
The bird designation is both useful and very annoying, because the classification system attempts both to use and to distance itself from the traditional associations with the birds. Dove does, in fact, mean peacemaker; Owl does not precicely mean wise, though it does have to do with collecting information; Peacock isn't really supposed to mean a strutting performer--except that it sort of does, and Eagle isn't actually a bird of prey, just an ultra-direct leader type. Sadly, the one I find the most offensive, with the least explanatory power at face value, is my own: Peacock. More on that in a minute...
There are some good explanations of this system online. It has the benefit of being simpler than Meyers-Briggs, and of dealing specifically with one aspect of personality--communication. Here is a paper-based (PDF) test, which includes descriptions of the birds; this site has a self-assessment questionaire. Here are two more sites with good explanations of the types:
- "Are you. . . an Eagle, Peacock, Dove or Owl when you communicate?"
- "Team Communcation: Birds of a Feather"
The latter, in particular, has a comparative chart that tells you how to recognize each of the types and what their strengths, weaknesses, and bottom line are. I tested firmly as a Peacock, but I have more than a few Owl traits. On the whole, I am less happy with this schema than the Meyers-Briggs, which in some ways supports and in some ways contradicts the DOPE classification--the INFP "Idealist" could be an emotional Peacock who gets excited about ideas, and might be a "performer" in some ways, but is not necessarily a pushy attention-seeker...
What is interesting about the birds is the diagram on page 5 of this PDF (also above), which shows how controlling or supportive, direct or indirect each type is. I like to think I am direct, but also supportive--Peacock. This model substitutes "Assertiveness" for "Controlling." And this discussion translates the whole thing into practical terms--what you need to know in order to be able to communicate effectively with each of the types. Something to remember when doing a self-evaluation is that this schema is geared specifically to the workplace. So while this chart probably represents how I come across in meetings (as a Peacock):
- The Dove is sympathetic, moderate, people-focused.
- The Owl is technical, analytical, process-focused.
- The Peacock is expressive, persuasive, recognition-focused.
- The Eagle is bold, confident, results-focused.
I have more than a few Dove and Owl characteristics (INFP).
So how is all this useful? Well, in Training and Organizational Development, teaching people how to communicate effectively in an office environment is simply one of the services we offer. People don't know how to communicate. They butt heads. They misunderstand one another. They work inefficiently in groups. Aha--wait! There is the common ground I was looking for.
I think that in teaching, personality types and communication styles could be productively discussed with undergraduate students and employed in the classroom. Throughout the 1990s and forward, the mode of teaching has been shifting to prefer so-called "active learning," when it is in fact active learning and not simply a search-and-find activity by which the student receives the same information that would be handed out in a lecture. Active learning can be tricky, and involves more questioning than is typically permitted--at least at the secondary level. But what active learning means more often than not is more group work--projects and whatnot--which I hated when I was in school. Loathed. Because often there was someone else competing with or sabotaging my vision--which meant that I was inclined to take charge and cut the other person out. The PBS Kids show Arthur actually has a great episode on exactly this topic. Group work is difficult to manage as an inexperienced student negotiating one's own ego in relation to others. And it is equally difficult to negotiate as a teacher--at least, as a teacher who is trying to facilitate student success. And yet, as much as I hate to admit it, it really is a useful skill to be able to work with others on projects. But all of the group work in the world won't make students better prepared for group projects in the workplace--unless they are taught a little bit about how people work together, group dynamics, and how to negotiate the roles they are required to fill.
Enter communication styles.
With the resources online, it would be simple for a teacher to devote some time at the beginning of a class, or of the first group project, to a discussion of communication styles. While an Eagle might one day, under the constraints of a job title, be forced to subsume his or her personality in order to placate a boss, it might help a group of students to complete a project on time to have them assign a leadership role to the person who is the clear leader. Having a group of 4 Doves or 4 Owls (4 Eagles seems unlikely...) working on a project might be ill-advised--or it might be treated as a problem to acknowledge and strategize to overcome. Have the Owl of the group do the research (Owls love information-gathering); let the Peacock exert some creative control. Working together according to the students' natural inclinations is bound to produce a stronger product, teach them about themselves, and prepare them for the eventuality of higher-stakes group work. Add a self-reflective writing exercise at the end, and voila! You have some good pedagogy. And something to build on:
- From what you have learned about your personality type, discuss your approach to interaction in your classes or your approach to education in general.
- From what you have learned about your particular communication style, analyze the tone of your first argumentative paper.
