learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
6.3<br />
The Herrmann ‘whole brain’ model and the<br />
Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)<br />
Introduction<br />
Ned Herrmann developed his ‘whole brain’ concept while<br />
he was in charge of management education for General<br />
Electric. Throughout his education and professional<br />
career, he was actively involved with the creative arts as<br />
well as with science and technology. Having developed<br />
a format of self-assessment by questionnaire, followed<br />
by group <strong>learning</strong> activities, he left General Electric<br />
in 1982 to set up the Ned Herrmann Group. The group<br />
is now established in more than a dozen countries,<br />
offering services in personal, interpersonal, staff<br />
and organisational development. These services<br />
are derived from the profiling procedure built into the<br />
Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). At the<br />
time of writing, over 1m mental preference profiles<br />
have been analysed by occupational category and<br />
in other ways, including international comparisons<br />
of management style. The ‘whole brain’ model has been<br />
applied in many contexts, including personal growth,<br />
counselling, group processes, teaching and <strong>learning</strong>,<br />
decision making and management.<br />
Origins and description of the model<br />
The HBDI provides, on the basis of 120 items,<br />
a four-category classification of mental preferences<br />
or thinking <strong>styles</strong> (sometimes also referred to<br />
as ‘<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>’). The first version was developed<br />
in 1982, after Herrmann had achieved only limited<br />
success in identifying electroencephalographic (EEG)<br />
correlates of specialised left- and right-brain functions.<br />
He was inspired by the widely publicised split-brain<br />
research carried out by Roger Sperry, winner of the<br />
Nobel Prize (Sperry 1964). However, following MacLean<br />
(1952), Herrmann (1989) also took into account<br />
hypothesised functions of the brain’s limbic system,<br />
which is located beneath the surface layers (or cerebral<br />
cortex). The four categories in Herrmann’s model can<br />
be summarised as follows.<br />
A Theorists (cerebral, left: the rational self)<br />
Theorists are said to find it difficult to accommodate<br />
the feeling self and the humanitarian style.<br />
B Organisers (limbic, left: the safe-keeping self)<br />
Organisers are said to find it difficult to accommodate<br />
the experimental self and the innovatory style.<br />
D Innovators (cerebral, right: the experimental self)<br />
Innovators are said to find it difficult to accommodate<br />
the safe-keeping self and the organising style.<br />
C Humanitarians (limbic, right: the feeling self)<br />
Humanitarians are said to find it difficult to<br />
accommodate the rational self and the theoretical style.<br />
Although Herrmann began with a brain-based theory<br />
of hemisphere dominance, he later accepted that this<br />
was an oversimplification with inadequate empirical<br />
support and recommended (1989, 63) that A, B, C, D<br />
quadrant terminology be used instead: ‘The whole-brain<br />
model, although originally thought of as a physiological<br />
map, is today entirely a metaphor.’ The metaphor<br />
is expressed in many different ways, using a range<br />
of descriptors based on the 120 items in the HBDI, and<br />
in Appendix E of The creative brain (1989), Herrmann<br />
devotes 14 pages to graphic representations of his<br />
model, each differing in the labels used. Two of these<br />
representations locate the ‘whole brain’ model within<br />
the surrounding culture (ethnic, family, social and<br />
organisational) and environment (physical, geographic,<br />
economic, temporal and motivational). Table 25 is<br />
a representation which illustrates how people who<br />
strongly prefer one of the four categories (or quadrants)<br />
are said to differ in their approach to <strong>learning</strong>. Virtually<br />
the same representation appears in Herrmann (1996),<br />
where it is described as a model of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>.<br />
The quadrant model and the concept of ‘dominance’<br />
is not meant to imply that most people have a strong<br />
preference for one quadrant only. In fact, Herrmann<br />
states that this is true of only 7% of the population<br />
studied. The most common pattern (for 60%) is to<br />
have strong preferences in two quadrants, followed<br />
by strong preferences in three quadrants (30%).<br />
Only about 3% of those assessed have what is<br />
termed a ‘quadruple dominant’ or ‘whole brain’ profile.<br />
Herrmann states (1989, 89–90) that these people<br />
‘are capable of developing an extraordinarily balanced<br />
view of any given situation. They can also communicate<br />
easily with people who favor one of the other quadrants,<br />
and act as translators among people of different<br />
mental preferences.’<br />
Another feature of Herrmann’s model is the idea<br />
that certain combinations of preference are more<br />
harmonious than others, especially the ‘left-brain’<br />
combination of A and B quadrants and the ‘right-brain’<br />
combination of D and C quadrants. Conflict is more<br />
likely to arise between ‘diagonal’ quadrants – that is,<br />
experimental as opposed to safe-keeping tendencies<br />
and rational as opposed to feeling appraisals<br />
(D/B and A/C).<br />
The ‘whole brain’ model is not based on biological<br />
determinism. Indeed, Herrmann (1989, 20–21) is<br />
persuaded that ‘the way a person uses the specialised<br />
brain results from socialisation – parenting, teaching,<br />
life experiences, and cultural influences – far more<br />
than from genetic inheritance’. He believes that<br />
it is in the interest of individuals and organisations<br />
to develop sufficient flexibility to respond, against<br />
their natural preferences, to meet particular situational<br />
demands; and, where necessary, to make longer-lasting<br />
value-based adjustments, especially if this can release<br />
latent creativity in an individual or in an organisation.