LTE Draft – Valcom

Insert Title Here

To the Editor:

Re “To Promote Inclusivity, Stay Away from Personality Assessments,” by Quinisha Jackson-Wright (Smarter Living, Aug. 26):

 Quinisha Jackson-Wright describes in her letter “Questioning Personality Assessments,” how the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator assessment gave her a negative experience and possibly hurt her career. After the indicator told Ms. Wright was a I.N.T.J. (Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, Judgement) she was told to share along with all her colleagues what her results were. Quickly she learned that she was the only introvert in a company that was all extrovert.

Taking the test has no harm, as it can help many people learn something that they never knew about them selves before, and possibly help them in a career they are new to. Being required to take the test does not seem like something that should be required by a company, however I understand why some companies would want the employees to take the test. The only thing that I do not agree with is that people should not be required to share their results as in Ms. Wright’s case people can make an unfair bias against you or you could feel like an outlier.

The overall article I do not agree with completely. I think that blaming the Myers-Briggs test was not the right thing because it helps so many people and has no harm in it. If someone does not like or support the team that they are put into, then they should not stick around with that team and wait for something better to happen. When knowing in this world especially, waiting for that perfect promotion is not really a golden reality.

Valcom
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/smarter-living/inclusivity-diversity-personality-assessements-myers-briggs.html?module=inline

Gallery | This entry was posted in LTE Draft, Valcom. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to LTE Draft – Valcom

  1. Valcom says:

    I very much so appreciated the feedback and will begin to implement the errors into my LTE for portfolio. I’ll be sure to ask for more feedback on my portfolio version soon.

    Like

    • davidbdale says:

      I’m glad you’re happy, Valcom. A more fragile student might have buckled under the weight of all that critique. You’re in danger of falling behind if I don’t see your Portfolio version before you publish the draft of your Editorial, so get on this soon, and show me something.

      This article you’re responding to is a bit trivial, and the author herself is dubious in the extreme, but YOU can make something wonderful out of an impassioned interaction with flawed material. It would be a triumph.

      I’m looking forward to it.

      Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Let’s get started, Valcom.

    PARAGRAPH 1.
    What your paragraph does well is to provide some background information for readers who have not read the original article. That’s an essential component of a good letter. But it’s not enough for an entire paragraph.

    —Your first sentence identifies the author and the title of her article (You wrongly identify her article as a letter.), but doesn’t indicate that she was obligated to take a test by her employer.
    —When you say it 1) gave her a negative experience, and 2) hurt her career, we wonder whether career harm doesn’t qualify as a negative experience? If it does, what was the other negative experience? Discomfort with her co-workers? Secret shame? Loss of her parking space?
    —When you say that after finding she was an INTJ, she was told to share “what her results were.” Were the results something other than that she was an INTJ? Your sentence is unclear in identify her INTJ status as THE RESULTS.
    —Your last sentence names a new outcome: she was “the other.” Was this the “negative experience”? Did this “hurt her career”? Were these “the results”?

    That may all seem very picky, Valcom, but avoid that sort of confusion is the hallmark of effective writing.

    Your paragraph does not indicate how or why you might disagree with Jackson-Wright, or what insight you will offer to make your letter publishable. You have at most three sentences to establish the value of your letter to the editors; otherwise, they’ll sift into the pile of hundreds of others for one that gets to the point.

    PARAGRAPH 2.
    You continue to delay making your own bold claim all the way through this paragraph too, Valcom. Perhaps you are the world’s most patient reader; you cannot assume your own readers will be. Most will bail if you make them work. Be a good guide. Tell them why the tour is worth their time. Promise them the Eiffel Tower just around the corner.

    Flip this paragraph on its head:
    1. people should not be required to share their results
    2. people can make an unfair bias against you or you could feel like an outlier.
    3. understand why some companies would want the employees to take the test
    4. many people learn something that they never knew about themselves

    Number 1 is your bold clear claim. It follows logically from the end of your first paragraph. She felt like “the other.” New Paragraph: She shouldn’t have been made to feel that way. Making her feel that way is BAD BUSINESS. It’s also UNETHICAL. Instead it could be HELPFUL, ETHICAL, and GOOD FOR BUSINESS if it helps employees recognize their own personalities in a supportive and collegial manner.

    See what I mean? Once you stand firm on your own foundation, you can erect all the explanations you want because . . . your readers are looking at the Eiffel Tower!

    PARAGRAPH 3.
    —Here you shift your blame from the company that misused the test to the test itself. You don’t need two villains, and you haven’t killed the first one yet, so don’t distract yourself. In fact, you pretty much shift the blame to Jackson-Wright for not understanding she couldn’t succeed at the company until she had taken the test.

    Which raises another possibility. Suppose your reaction to the article was three-fold? It would be very bold.
    You say:
    There is so much wrong with Jackson-Wright’s analysis of her experience with a company-mandated Myers-Briggs Personality Indicator assessment!
    1. The test, which can be very helpful to make employees more aware of their own behavioral tendencies, should never be shared with co-workers.
    2. Employers who promise that the “tests” are meant only for self-awareness and team-building are being utterly dishonest.
    3. Jackson-Wright is naive to think that employers needs the test to make promotion judgments, as if they can’t judge employee personalities from their behavior.
    4. If it urged her to leave a company that didn’t value her particular skills, the test, however unethically it was applied, did her a favor.

    See the difference? Every claim in the list makes an ethical judgment, wastes no words, engages the reactions of readers.

    Please let me know whether you value this detailed evaluation and advice, Valcom.
    1. Leave a Reply to share your reactions.
    2. Incorporate the advice into your LTE for Portfolio.
    3. Leave this Draft version alone. The differences between the Draft and the Portfolio version will demonstrate your responsiveness to feedback.

    Whatever you do, don’t neglect the advice. I quickly learn to ignore students who don’t engage in the recursive process of feedback.

    Like

  3. Valcom says:

    I need feedback – as if right now I am reading comments you have made on other posts and working from there for my portfolio. But once I get your feedback I’ll make sure to work from there.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s