Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) is a system claimed to measure and describe thinking preferences in people, developed by William "Ned" Herrmann while leading management education at General Electric's Crotonville facility. It is a type of cognitive style measurement and model similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, [DeWald, R. E. (1989) abstract] [Krause, M. G. (1987, June) abstract] Learning Orientation Questionnaire, [Bentley and Hall (2001) p.3961] DISC assessment, [Wilson (2007) pp. 1079] and others. [Deardorff, Dale S. (2005) p.1]

Brain Dominance Model

In his brain dominance model, Herrmann identifies four different modes of thinking:

*A. Analytical thinking:Key words : logical, factual, critical, technical and quantitative.:Preferred activities : collecting data, analysis, understanding how things work, judging ideas based on facts, criteria and logical reasoning.
*B. Sequential thinking:Key words : safekeeping, structured, organized, complexity or detailed, planned. :Preferred activities : following directions, detail oriented work, step-by-step problem solving, organization and implementation.

*C. Interpersonal thinking :Key words : kinesthetic, emotional, spiritual, sensory, feeling.:Preferred activities : listening to and expressing ideas, looking for personal meaning, sensory input, and group interaction.

*D. Imaginative thinking:Key words : Visual, holistic, intuitive, innovative, and conceptual.:Preferred activities : Looking at the big picture, taking initiative, challenging assumptions, visuals, metaphoric thinking, creative problem solving, long term thinking.

His theory was inspired by the research into left-right brain laterilization by Roger Wolcott Sperry, Robert Ornstein, Henry Mintzberg, and Michael Gazzaniga [ [http://www.herrmann-europe.com/uk/faq.html European Herrmann Institute FAQ] ] and further developed to reflect a metaphor for how individuals think and learn. Use of that metaphor brought later criticism by brain researchers such as Terence Hines for being over simplistic.

Herrmann also coined the concept "Whole Brain Thinking" as a description of flexibility in using thinking styles that one may cultivate in individuals or in organizations allowing the situational use of all four styles of thinking. [Herrmann, Ned (1999) pp.1-3]

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

The format of the instrument is a 120 question pencil and paper test which claims to determine which of the model's four styles of thinking is a dominant preference. More than one style may be dominant at once in this model. [Lees (2007) pp.11-15] Terence (1987) p.604] For example, in Herrmann's presentation a person may be dominant in both analytical and sequential styles of thinking but be weaker in interpersonal or imaginative modes, though he asserts all people use all styles to varying degrees.

A 1985 dissertation by C. Bunderson, currently CEO of the non-profit EduMetrics Institute which has an ongoing business relationship with Herrmann International, [Lees (2007) p.32] is published on the Herrmann International website. It asserts that "four stable, discrete clusters of preference exist", "scores derived from the instrument are valid indicators of the four clusters", and "The scores permit valid inferences about a person's preferences and avoidances for each of these clusters of mental activity". [ [http://www.hbdi.com/Resources/Research/HBDI-Validation C. Victor Bunderson, 'Dissertation: The Validity of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument'] , published by Herrmann International, 1985]

Training

Based on the instrument and model, organizations such as Herrmann International and Herrmann Institute offer programs, books, games, and coaching claiming to improve personal or group communication, creativity, and other benefits. [ [http://www.hbdi.com/ Herrmann International web site] ] [ [http://www.thinkingmatters.com Herrmann Institute web site] ]

Critiques

elf Reporting

Measurements that require people to state preferences between terms have received criticism. Researchers C. W. Allinson and J. Hayes, in their own 1996 publication of a competing cognitive style indicator called "Cognitive Style Index"Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) pp.1-2] in the peer reviewed Journal of Management Studies, noted that "there appears to be little or no published independent evaluation of several self-report measures developed as management training tools. [including] Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument." [Allinson & Hayes (1996) pp. 119-135.]

However, this did go so far as to say that measurement was not useful. Researchers G.P. Hodgkinson and E. Sadler-Smith in 2003 found cognitive style indicators generally useful for studying organizations. However in a critique of the "Cognitive Style Index" indicator opined that progress in the field had been "hampered by a proliferation of alternative constructs and assessment instruments" many unreliable with a lack of agreement over nomenclature.

To measure self-report consistency, a differential item functioning review of HBDI was published in 2007 by Jared Lees. However, his tests were supported by EduMetrics, a company on contract with Herrmann International to evaluate the system, and were therefore not completely independent. [Lees (2007) pp.20,32]

Lateralization

Herrmann International describes an underlying basis for HBDI in brain lateralization theory and associates each of the four thinking styles with a particular locus in the human brain. [ [http://www.hbdi.com/home/friendlyDownload.cfm?directory=100024_articles&actualFile=100153.pdf&saveName=Coaching-With-Style.pdf Herrmann-Nehdi, Ann (2003) "Coaching With Style"] ] Analytical and sequential styles are associated with left brain and interpersonal and imaginative styles are associated with right brain, for example. Ned Herrmann described dominance of a particular thinking style with dominance with a portion of a brain hemisphere. [Herrmann, Ned (1999) pp.1-3]

The notion of hemisphere dominance attracted criticism from the neuroscience community, notably by Terence Hines who called it "pop psychology" and "mythology" based on unpublished and questionable EEG data. [Hines (1985) p.1] Terence Hines (1987) p.600] Current literature he said instead found that both hemispheres are always involved in cognitive tasks [Hines (1985) p.1] and attempting to strengthen a specific hemisphere does not improve creativity, for example. [Hines (1991) pp. 223-227] Hines stated "No evidence is presented to show that these 'brain dominance measures' measure anything related to the differences between the two hemispheres. In other words, no evidence of validity [of hemisphere dominance] is presented."

Creativity

Herrmann offered creativity workshops based on strengthening particular thinking styles and strengthening the right hemisphere, which received critiques that creativity is not localized to a particular thinking style nor to a particular hemisphere.Hines (1987) p.603] [McKean (1985) "Discover" pp.30-41.]

A study published in the peer reviewed "Creativity Research Journal" in 2005 by J. Meneely and M. Portillo agreed that creativity is not localized into a particular thinking style, such as a right-brain dominance resulting in more creativity. They did however find correlation between creativity in design students based on how flexible they were using all four thinking styles equally as measured by the HBDI. When students were less entrenched in a specific style of thinking they measured higher creativity using Domino’s Creativity Scale (ACL-Cr). Therefore, they found training thinking styles associated by Herrmann as right hemisphere did not necessarily improve creativity, but training in thinking styles that measured less strongly in the instrument would produce greater creativity. [Meneely and Portillo (2005) p.1]

References

* Allinson, C.W., & Hayes, J. (1996) 'Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research', "Journal of Management Studies", 33:1 January 1996
* Bentley, Joanne and Hall, Pamela (2001) "Learning Orientation Questionnaire correlation with the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument: A validity study" Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 61(10-A), Apr 2001. pp. 3961.
* Deardorff, Dale S. (2005) "An exploratory case study of leadership influences on innovative culture: A descriptive study" Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 66(4-B), 2005. pp. 2338.
* DeWald, R. E. (1989). Relationships of MBTI types and HBDI preferences in a population of student program managers (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(06), 2657B. (University Microfilms No. AAC89-21867)
* Herrmann, Ned (1999) "The Theory Behind the HBDI® and Whole Brain® Technology" [http://www.hbdi.com/home/friendlyDownload.cfm?directory=100024_articles&actualFile=100543.pdf&saveName=Theory-Behind-The-HBDI.pdf pdf]
* Hines, Terence (1991) 'The myth of right hemisphere creativity.' "Journal of Creative Behavior", Vol 25(3), 1991. pp. 223-227.
* Hines, Terence (1987) 'Left Brain/Right Brain Mythology and Implications for Management and Training', "The Academy of Management Review", Vol. 12, No. 4, October 1987
* Hines, Terence (1985) 'Left brain, right brain: Who's on first?' "Training & Development Journal", Vol 39(11), Nov 1985. pp. 32-34. [Journal Article]
* Hodgkinson, Gerard P., and Sadler-Smith, Eugene (2003) "Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index.", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 09631798, 20030601, Vol. 76, Issue 2
* Holland, Paul W. and Wainer, Howard (1993) "Differential Item Functioning" ISDN 0-80580-972-4
* Krause, M. G. (1987, June). A comparison of the MBTI and the Herrmann Participant Survey. Handout from presentation at APT-VII, the Seventh Biennial International Conference of the Association for Psychological Type, Gainesville, FL.
* Lees, Jared A. (2007) "Differential Item Functioning Analysis of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument" Masters Thesis, Brigham Young University - [http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/etd2103.pdf pdf]
* McKean, K. (1985) 'Of two minds: Selling the right brain.', "Discover", 6(4), pp.30-41.
* Meneely, Jason; and Portillo, Margaret; (2005) "The Adaptable Mind in Design: Relating Personality, Cognitive Style, and Creative Performance." Creativity Research Journal, Vol 17(2-3), 2005. pp. 155-166. [Journal Article]
* Wilson, Dennis H. (2007) "A comparison of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument(TM) and the extended DISCMRTM behavior profiling tool: An attempt to create a more discerning management perspective." Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 68(3-A). pp. 1079.

Further reading

* Ned Herrmann (1990) The Creative Brain, Brain Books, Lake Lure, North Carolina. ISBN 0944850022. ISBN 978-0944850022.
* Ned Herrmann (1996) The Whole Brain Business Book, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. ISBN 0070284628. ISBN 978-0070284623.
* Giannini, John L. (1984) Compass of the Soul: Archetypal Guides to a Fuller Life. ISBN 0935652701. ISBN 978-0935652703.
* Edward Lumsdaine, M. Lumsdaine (1994) Creative Problem Solving, McGraw-Hill ISBN 0070390916. ISBN 978-0070390911.
* Peter Ferdinand Drucker, David Garvin, Dorothy Leonard, Susan Straus, and John Seely Brown. (1998). Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. Harvard Business School Press ISBN 0875848818. ISBN 978-0875848815.
* Sala, Sergio Della, Editor (1999). Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain, J. Wiley & Sons, New York. ISBN 0-471-98303-9. ISBN 978-0471983033.