Blog Archives

Help Me Test a New Coaching Tool

I’m looking for a few volunteers to test a new coaching tool that I might use in online coaching sessions.

I’ve recently discovered this collaborative brainstorming platform: Stormboard. It lets you organize virtual sticky notes on a shared screen.Since some of my favorite coaching methods involve sticky notes, I’m thinking this might be an exciting visual tool to use during Skype or phone sessions with clients.

Test New Coaching Tool
I have already tried it out with a few colleagues, but would love to gain some more experience with it in “apprentice mode”, to figure out whether and how to use it in coaching sessions.

If you’d like to try it with me (in other words, get a free online coaching session), email me. We can work on any problem or decision you’re currently facing. If you don’t have a specific problem right now, we can do an exercise to clarify your core values and explore new decision opportunities.

Depending on the issue you want to work on, one session may of course not be enough to resolve it, but one session should give you a good start so that you can keep working on it afterwards, by yourself or with friends. I promise I will not attempt to sell you additional coaching sessions. The platform itself is free anyway (at least the basic version that we’ll use), so anything we create is yours to keep, and to do with whatever you like afterwards.

Get in touch if you’re interested!

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



Book Recommendation: How To Write A Lot

Paul J. Silvia (2007). How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing.

Paul Silvia makes a strong case for scheduling in his book “How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing“.
It has been one of the most influential books for my own writing practice, and I often find myself mentioning gems of practical wisdom from this book in my own workshops and coaching sessions.

The book focuses on academic writing, but a lot of its advice applies to anybody who has a hard time working towards goals that are important in the long run, but not urgent on any particular day. Writing is just a really good example of such a goal.

by Ursina Teuscher at Teuscher Counseling, LLC



What Are Your Strengths? Review of Two Self-Assessments

I’m featuring two self-assessments here that focus on clarifying what your strengths are: the Clifton StrengthsFinder®, and the VIA Survey.

The Clifton StrengthsFinder® was developed by the Gallup Organization. Based on a lot of interview data, they came up with 34 distinct patterns of strengths, or what they call “talent themes”. The online self-assessment tells individuals which of those “themes” are most pronounced in them. From the perspective of management consulting, the assumption here is that by identifying people’s strengths, an organization’s overall performance can be improved.

The VIA Survey was created by Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman, well-known researchers in the field of positive psychology. It is designed to identify a person’s profile of character strengths. The inventory informed the Character Strengths and Virtues Handbook (CSV), a counterpart to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) used in traditional psychology. Unlike the DSM, which categorizes human deficits and disorders, the CSV classifies positive human strengths.

So, the two assessments have different origins and purposes, but both are centered on helping people recognize and build upon their strengths.

I took both self-assessments online and read up on the research behind them, and here are my observations on both of them.

The research:
  • There is a technical report on the StrengthsFinder® website that summarizes the development and validation process of the assessment. Several studies with huge sample sizes by research groups both inside and outside of Gallup have tested the reliability and validity of the assessment, and the technical report provides a lot of information about the statistical characteristics of the measures and their usefulness for interventions.
  • The VIA team also provides a nice (shorter) overview of the survey’s psychometrics on their website. Aside from the standard measures that we would expect, such as alpha coefficients, they also present a factor analysis, which reveals a discrepancy between their model and the newer research. This gives me a better impression than if everything looked smooth, which honest research rarely is. While the number of studies that tested the VIA Survey is rather small, they have been conducted by more than one research group (suggesting at least one might be independent from the developers), and have been published in peer-reviewed journals (rather than books or self-published “reports”). The journal that published the factor analysis, “Assessment”, is a high-impact journal.

In addition to the validation of the survey itself, you’ll find an extensive literature overview on the VIA website, summarizing what the research says about character strengths in general.

The money, and what you get for it:
  • For the StrengthsFinder®, you have buy the book first, before you can take the assessment (you’ll need the access code you get in the book). As a result of taking the assessment, you get a report with your top 5 strengths, along with some suggestions for action plans. You would have to pay more for any more detailed reports, including the full rank order of your strengths.
  • The VIA® Institute of Character is a non-profit organization. You can take the assessment for free, without buying a book. As a result of that self-assessment, you’ll get your entire “Strength Profile”, as a rank order, along with a short description of 24 possible strengths. There too, you could pay for more elaborate results.
My subjective experience taking the assessments:
  • I found some of the questions in the StrengthsFinder® very irritating. Here’s one example of a question I wouldn’t possibly know how to answer:ItemSo if I’m somebody who never makes deadlines and don’t deliver what I promised, I get the same score (“Neutral”) as somebody who always makes deadlines and follows through on her commitments? That just doesn’t sound like a good idea.
  • The StrengthsFinder® enforces a time limit to answer each question, which is unusual for personality questionnaires. I don’t know of any research suggesting it would be an advantage to “not think too long” before answering. I suspect the real reason they’re doing this is to prevent people from copying the questions. (I did for example miss the question above, because I spent all my allotted time first scratching my head in disbelief and then taking a screenshot.)
  • The VIA Survey took less time to take, and the questions seemed (very subjectively!) to make more sense.

Overall, they both seem like well-researched instruments: the StrengthsFinder® more commercialized and more widely used, but also with more research history. I personally found that the VIA Survey gave me more bang for my buck (which was no buck at all in this case), and was less annoying to take.

How about you?

I’d love to hear other’s perspectives, and I know many of my readers are very familiar with the StrengthsFinder at least, if not with both instruments.

Did you ever take either of these assessments? Or are using them in your own practice with clients or employees? What has been your experience? (If you’d like me to respond, please don’t forget to include your email address — but I’ll be very interested in reading your comments either way.)

 

by Ursina Teuscher at Teuscher Counseling, LLC

Earlier posts on self-assessments:

 



Self-Assessments: The Myth of Personality Types

Or: Mind the Bell-Curve

First off, here’s a fun article about the Myers Briggs (MBTI) that I wish I had written myself. It speaks from my heart.

But even apart from the Myers Briggs, any theory claiming that people come in distinct personality “types” (e.g., the “Eneagram”, “True Colors”, “Are you a dog or a cat person?”, etc.) has a very fundamental problem: none of those types make sense, for two simple reasons. (Geoffrey Miller explains them in more detail and eloquence in his book “Spent”, which I had reviewed earlier on this blog.)

1. Personality traits have been documented in a huge body of research. After decades of studies by a multitude of independent groups, and after many data-driven revisions of initial theories, one dominating model suggest that there are five distinct factors, also known as the “Big Five”. They have been labeled Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. There’s also a newer model that finds six dimensions (adding the factor of Honesty/Humility to the other slightly modified five factors).

In those models, each of the dimensions is normally distributed, along a bell-curve (as is the case for  almost any other conceivable human trait). This means that most people find themselves somewhere in the middle of each of those dimensions, being moderately conscientious, agreeable, etc, with fewer people having extreme traits. The dichotomies of typologies (such as feeling vs thinking; or judging vs perceiving in the Myers Briggs) simply don’t make sense if the underlying traits have a bell-curve distribution.
The bell curve also explains why these tests are notoriously unreliable, meaning that most people fluctuate between different types if they take the tests repeatedly.

personality traits

2. The five or six personality factors are statistically independent of each other. That is to say, knowing a person’s score on some of those factors gives you no information whatsoever about all the other aspects of their personality.

Together, points 1. and 2. are what statisticians call a multivariate normal distribution: each dimension shows a normal distribution with most people near the middle, and each dimension is independent of the others.

Together, they also tell us that distinct personality types are an illusion.

Why, then, are we so fascinated by them, and why do we find it so intriguing to be assigned to a specific type? I’m assuming it has to do with our talent for story-telling and pattern-seeking, but I would welcome other people’s thoughts on that topic.

With regard to the Myers Briggs, I also take issue with the idea that different people should be “thinking” vs “feeling”, or “sensing” vs “intuitive” types. I believe we all need to do all of the above, not either/or. But that would be a topic for a whole new post. In fact, it’s the topic of a whole book we already wrote.

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



Infographic: Increase Your Productivity Without Burning Out

Here is a two-sided infographic. Together, the two pages give you a visual summary of my workbook: “Increasing Productivity in Healthy and Sustainable Ways”.

The first page provides an overview of important neurological and psychological findings. Based on those, I suggest best practices grouped along five broad principles.

The second page presents a framework for assessing your own work-habits, trouble-shooting your problems, and developing new habits.

Infographic: Increase Your Productivity in Healthy and Sustainable Ways

Infographic Productivity: Mastering Own Interventions

Find more information about the workbook here, or on Amazon, where you can look inside, read a sample, and see reviews. You can also order the workbook directly from the publisher on Createspace.

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR



Video: A Dialogue About Procrastination

A conversation about procrastination with Joseph Rhinewine, PhD, from Portland Mindfulness Therapy:

by

 

Tags: , ,

My New Waiting Room: Spella Caffè

(Or: A real-life example of a creative resource allocation decision.)

If you’ve been in my office, you already know that it has a great view, but no waiting room, let alone one with a fancy coffee machine.

spellacups

However, I have the great fortune that some of Portland’s best coffee is being served right at the entrance of my very office building, at Spella Caffè. It’s a small European style coffee bar with extremely friendly staff. Apart from coffee and espresso drinks, they also have truly outstanding chai tea and hot chocolate. If you think I’m biased, you’re probably right, but check out their yelp reviews.

So here’s my new policy: whenever you find yourself a little early for an appointment with me, please get something delicious on my tab.
They know. They’ll take care of you.

by Ursina Teuscher

spellastreet spellasign

 

 

 



Coaching Online or in Person — Does the Setting Matter?

What the research says about online coaching:

At this point, there is quite a bit of research on this question, for example showing that coaching over the phone or through online channels can be very effective, that adequate rapport can be established between a counselor and client, and that some clients prefer the reduced stigma and easier access offered by online mental health services.

For more in depth discussion, this handbook addresses many practical aspects of online counseling, such as technological, ethical, legal and multicultural issues, treatment strategies, and testing and assessment:

Kraus, R., Stricker, G., & Speyer, C. (Eds.). (2010). Online counseling: A handbook for mental health professionals. Academic Press.

My own experience with online coaching:

While I do enjoy in-person meetings with clients, I often find that phone sessions can be even more focused and efficient. What I really like from the coach/counselor perspective is my freedom to take notes (writing, drawing graphs and charts to clarify my own thoughts while listening) without needing to worry about maintaining eye contact. Of course the client may do the same, which can also help. For me, video usually doesn’t add anything to the rapport or even simply the enjoyment of the session, however some clients feel differently, in which case video sessions can be a great option.

To sum up, phone or video coaching is a excellent alternative for those who care mostly about focus and efficiency, and less about the feel-good factor of the sessions. Of course, it’s also a great choice for anybody who is looking for a specialist they may not find locally. In my case, I have been very happy to work with people who did not find any coaches or counselors in their hometown with a similar background and focus on decision making or goal achievement.

If you have done any online coaching or counseling, either as a client or professional, I would love to hear about your experience.

by Ursina Teuscher

Tags: , , , , ,

Interest Profiler for Career Choice and Development

Im my last post, where I discussed a free personality self-assessment, I promised to write more about self-assessments, in particular provide information about a test that is more geared towards career development.

Here is a website that offers several free career-oriented self-assessments and a neat way to explore information about hundreds of occupations: http://www.cacareerzone.org.

The interest profiler, for example, is based on the six Occupational Themes (developed by the psychologist John L. Holland). His idea assumes that people thrive most in career environments that fit their personality, and that jobs and career environments are classifiable in that way. The model classifies jobs and career along six occupational themes or “types”, and all the different combinations of those:

  • Realistic (Doers)
  • Investigative (Thinkers)
  • Artistic (Creators)
  • Social (Helpers)
  • Enterprising (Persuaders)
  • Conventional (Organizers)

As an acronym of those themes, Holland’s model is sometimes also referred to as RIASEC. The interest profiler is a self-test that helps you figure out which three of those six themes are your strongest suits, and gives you suggestions for careers that require predominantly those skills and personalities.



Just for Fun: Assessing Your Personality

My clients sometimes ask me if I could do a personality assessment with them. Although I don’t think that’s usually necessary, I understand that learning more about our own personality, and how we compare to other people, can be fascinating and may inform our choices. And the answer is yes, I can. But so can you, if you want.

We are living in a wonderful open-source age, where the best things (especially the most scientific things) may be free, if we know where to find them.

Here, for example, is a short version of the IPIP-NEO personality test:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/j5j/IPIP/ipipneo120.htm.

It looks at 5 broad dimensions (also known as the “Big Five” in the field of personality research), and 30 subdomains of personality. This short version has 120 items to complete. If you feel intrigued or ambitious, you can also do the original long version, which has 300 items: http://www.personal.psu.edu/j5j/IPIP/

These questionnaires fully rely on your own honesty and self-awareness, they do not claim to reveal any hidden, secret information.

A word of caution: When you look at your results, read the explanation of each dimension and sub-facet carefully. Some concepts (e.g., “morality”; “intellect”) are used differently than in our everyday language!

Coming up: I’ll review another free self-assessment soon – one that will be career oriented, based on Holland’s Occupational Themes.

 

Update to this post (9/24/14):

Psychology Today also offers a free short version of the Big Five Personality Test.

by Ursina Teuscher at Teuscher Counseling, LLC



Top