Okay, I'll start the discussion:

Key questions to ask of any program like this:

1.  What psychological research is the basis of the program?

2.  Has the program been validated for consistency and accuracy?..........

Question one: Psychological research for basis of SmartSkills

...  Jerry Rhodes, the developer of this program originally developed this
program to assist Philips Electronics in the Netherlands to assist them to
improve corporate performance worldwide by developing a generic easy to learn,
practical thinking skills system for universal application across their R&D
community. The development and resaerch team was made up of Philips scientists,
managers and Jerry Rhodes.

To your direct question: The team did 4 years of intensive empirical research
and continual trial applications with scientists, managers and technicians in
the work place. By 1981 they had developed a business-based map of the mind at
work and an advanced system of conceptual tools to improve performance and
productivity.
Philips some 20 years later is still using the tool today. They know it as
Effective Intelligence. For a more indepth perspective of  the theory and the
process the following books are worth a quick read.
      " The Colours Of Your Mind" Jerry Rhodes and Sue Thame published by
William Collins Sons & Co. ISBN 0-00-637110-8.

Question two: Has the program been vaidated for consistency and accuracy.

..... Yes it has, in fact every time it is delivered the participants analyse
their own profile and 9 times out of 10 they advise that it is accurate. On
those occasions where the rsults were not accurate the participant has advised
us that he or she at some point chose a response that they thought should be
chosen or a response that they pictured themselves as doing versus the response
that describes how they like to do the task.

You should be aware we refer to SmarSkills as a tool and not an authority.

Question three: What do you do with the 15% (5%? 40%?) of the people who don't
feel
like the program gives an accurate picture of their thinking style?  Do you
know what that percentage is? (See question 2) Do you make it clear just
how many people that is in the group you're working with?

..... As noted in my response to quetion two, each person does their own
analysis and through that exercise they usually see where they actually "like
to go" when they engage their thought process. So they validate their own
profile right there in the room.

With respect to how many people we can work with that can range from one to
what ever size of group the client wants to put through the program and to what
detail level she/he wants to provide.

Question four:
How do you assure that participants don't use the results to
"pigeonhole" each other and say, "Of course that's how s/he would react,
s/he's a ______ thinker"?  How do you keep the results from being just
another basis for jumping to inferences about other people rather than a
way to help people guard against making inferences without checking them
out?

.... Great question: The way we approach this is on the postive sense. We
actually have the people focus on the postive attributes of each style;
"straight forward & decisive", " passionate and committed", "organized and
informed", " considerate & communicative", " ingenious & creative" and
"imaginative & inspired". We emphasis the value in all thinking styles.
Pointing out that no one style is right or wrong because we need all the
styles. So if someones' strength is in the details then let's make sure we
engage his strength when we need detail, etc. We point out that there is value
in being able to operate in all the thinking styles versus only their own
preferred style. The point we make that in fact there is no wrong way of
thinking but rather it is important to to have the right thinking taking place
at the right time.

The last part of the question addresses..How do you keep the results from being
just
another basis for jumping to inferences about other people rather than a
way to help people guard against making inferences without checking them
out?

..... As part of the workshop we introduce SmartSkills tools and techniques to
address this issue. In short, we show them how to first step back and identify
the other person's style and the style they themselves are operating in ( i.e.
are you trying to get on with it while the other person is looking for more
detail). Then we have them check their perception of trhe other person's
intentions and then check that other person's perceptions of their intentions.
This may sound cumbersome but it actually isn't. I'm certain some of our
readers already do this to some degree. Those that do this will tell you
frequently puts them "more in the know". It helps them see where that person is
coming from.

As I mentioned before visit our website for more info: www.smartskills.com.

Regards,

Randy

--
--------------------------------
Randy Sullivan
BT Performance Plus
Break Through Thinking and Facilitation
(613) 230-7855
rsull...@magma.ca
--------------------------------