I believe you are right..

A profile is not a person.

A colour is not a character.

A test is not the truth.

And no serious learning designer should pretend that a profiling tool can explain human behaviour outside the context and relationship it was created within.

But let’s be honest.

You still want to know your result!

And that is the point.

The point is not whether the profile is “true”.

This is where many of us on the high horse get stuck.

We ask: Is the profile scientifically perfect?

Usually, no.

Is it complete?

Never.

Can it explain a person across all situations?

Absolutely not.

But that may be the wrong first question.

A better question is: Does it make people stop, think and talk about their behaviour?

Because if it does, it has learning value.

Not as a diagnosis.

Not as a label.

Not as a final answer.

But as a mirror.

And in learning we love mirrors. Especially the ones that say something slightly uncomfortable. It moves people it sparks interests and create disjunctions.

(Jarvis, P. (1987). Meaningful and meaningless experience: Towards an analysis of learning from life. Adult education quarterly, 37(3), 164-172.)

 

Why Profiles Work

Profiles work because they make the learning experience personal.

The moment a game says something about the player, the player leans in.

Not because the system is always right.  But because the player wants to know why it said what it said.

Why did I get this profile?

What did I choose?

Is that how I normally act?

Would my colleagues recognise this?

Is this helpful in my role?

Is this a strength, or is it becoming a risk?

That small moment of irritation, curiosity or recognition is gold. It keeps people in the learning experience for longer.

And that matters.

Because most learning does not fail because the model is weak.  It fails because people do not stay with it long enough to reflect. It fails because we don’t provide, identical elements for the learner to transfer general behaviours to the real world of tomorrow.

(Aarkrog, V., & Wahlgren, B. (2012). Transfer: kompetence i en professionel sammenhæng. Aarhus Universitetsforlag).

 

Context Is Everything

This is where I still draw a hard line.

A profile without context is dangerous nonsense.

A profile inside a relationship, a dilemma, a team conversation or a realistic business situation can be useful.

That is the difference.

If someone fills out a generic test on a random Tuesday and gets told they are “blue,” “red,” “green,” “strategic,” “adaptive” or “visionary,” I am not impressed.

But if someone plays a realistic scenario, makes difficult decisions, experiences consequences and then receives a profile based on those choices, we have something to work with.

Not because the profile explains the person.

But because the profile explains a pattern inside a context.

That is much more honest.

And much more useful, hopefully capable of creating the reflections and maybe the profile will get another 10 min from the player to play the same game again. Or start a conversation on how the peers have solved the same issues within the same game.

 

The Facilitator Gets Better Material

For facilitators, this is where profiles become powerful.

Without profiles, the reflection often starts with broad questions:

What did you notice?

What did you learn?

What would you do differently?

Fine questions. But also, easy to answer with workshop fog. But if you as a facilitator want to step out of the “Rockstar” (see my blog here) level you probably need to step closer to your participants.

With game profiles, the facilitator can go deeper:

Why did this pattern appear in the group?

What does it say about how you act under pressure?

Where - when in what context is this behaviour useful?

Where could it become a problem?

What are we avoiding as a team?

What does this tell us about the next learning need?

Now the reflection is anchored in something.

Not perfect personalised data.  But visible data made by players that can be reflected on, by players with the facilitator.

And visible data changes the room.

 

The Business Gets A Benchmark

This is the part we should take more seriously.

Profiles are not only useful for the individual player.

They can create strategic learning insight at cohort level.

When many people play the same game, the organisation starts to see patterns.

Are leaders too cautious?

Are teams too fast?

Are people avoiding conflict?

Are managers choosing control instead of involvement?

Are new employees responding differently from experienced employees?

Are departments solving the same problem in completely different ways?

That is not just fun. That is a benchmark.

And for a business, that benchmark can help answer a very practical question:

Where should we focus the next learning activity?

That is real value.

Not because the profile is the truth about the workforce.

But because it shows behavioural tendencies in a shared context.

 

Stop Worshipping Profiles. Stop Dismissing Them.

Both sides are annoying.

The profile believers are too religious.

The profile critics are often too proud.

One side act like a colour can explain a person.

The other side acts like anything that is not perfect should be thrown out.

 

Both miss the point. The value of profiling in learning is not precision.

The value is attention.

It gives people a reason to care.

It gives facilitators a better starting point.

It gives teams language.

It gives organisations patterns they can discuss.

That is enough.

 

The Actee Angle

This is why profiles make sense in game-based learning.

In Actee, the profile is not floating in the air. It is connected to choices, dilemmas, consequences and reflection.

The player does not just answer abstract questions about who they think they are.

They act inside a situation.

They make decisions in a simulation game built around specific problems, specific theories and specific dilemmas.

That matters.

Because the game can be designed to fit the exact situation people are facing. A leadership challenge. A change process. A collaboration problem. A customer dilemma. A strategic tension.

This makes the learning more realistic. It also makes the transfer back to work much stronger.

The profile becomes more interesting because it is connected to behaviour in context.

Not perfect.  Not final.  Not universal.

But useful.

And useful is underrated.

The profile helps the player stay longer.

It helps the facilitator create sharper reflection.

It helps the cohort see shared patterns.

It helps the business decide what to work on next.

 

That is not magazine psychology.

That is learning infrastructure.

 

My New Position

So yes, I have stopped bashing profile tools.

Not because I have become a believer.

I have not.

I still think profiling outside context is mostly theatre.

But inside a game, inside a dilemma, inside a relationship and inside a facilitated reflection, profiles can create real value.

They create curiosity.

They create friction.

They create language.

They create benchmarks.

They create better conversations.

 

So maybe the question is not:

“Is this profile the truth?”

Maybe the better question is:

“Does this profile help people see something they would otherwise avoid?”

If the answer is yes, then I am in!

Not on the high horse.

In the room.

 

- Leif