Isabel and Katharine (Myers-Briggs)


I’ve done the ‘Myers-Briggs test’ (AKA the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) three times this year (2017). The first time I came out as INFJ-Turbulent (I wrote about this on my other blog).


Turbulence (Broadstairs)

The next time, we did the test as part of a team development afternoon, and I came out as ISTJ, which was…odd…as I’ve never been ‘S’ (Sensing or Observant, depending on who you ask) before.


Sensing (or Observant) (Anna, 6.5 months)

My colleagues and I weren’t totally convinced, so I took the test again at home and came out as INTJ, which was more likely, but still different to the first test!


Thinking, Judging (also Sensing and Observing) (Willow, our old neighbours’ cat, 2012)

I wonder if the ‘S’ happened because the test I took that time was another version from the other two (actual Myers-Briggs rather than 16 Personalities). Anyhow, perhaps all this just goes to show that you can’t really put people in boxes – although the MBTI is not about doing this; it is more an indicator of tendencies or preferences rather than trying to say that a person is X or Y type and always behaves in such and such ways.

I found the development afternoon interesting, and useful in some ways, although I found it quite difficult to deal with the fact that I didn’t really agree with my test results. I felt like I had done the test wrong, which I realise is irrational, as there is no right or wrong with MBTI. I am a bit odd in that I do tend to categorise things/people and put them in boxes (not always literally), which I know is wrong, but it’s just the way my mind works! I think everyone does this to a certain extent; we just like to think we don’t!



A-roving we will go

Mill no. 4. Roving department, by Folsom, A. H...

A different kind of roving: Mill no. 4. Roving department, by Folsom, A. H. (Augustine H.) 2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week, the some of the library staff in the Shiny Not-so-new Learning Centre had some training in roving – Roving for Service Excellence, no less. The training was delivered by Jigsaw@work®. We’ve actually been carrying out ‘roving, or roaming, or floorwalking, or whatever you like to call it, for a number of years now, on and off, but never with very much success overall. We work in a very large building, and, with the best will in the world, we don’t have enough staff to have library people roving at all times of the day, so students have been known to complain that they can’t find help when they need it. This is obviously not good, so we are looking again at how we rove, and also getting a ‘pod’ for each floor, where we can help students on the floors so library users don’t have to go all the way downstairs to the only point that is currently manned at all times during office hours.

It’s not completely certain how things are going to work out with the pods at the moment – questions such as ‘will we have access to the library management system?’, or even ‘will there be a PC on the pod?’, have not yet been answered. Hopefully there will at least be a phone there so we/library users can call the office or the helpdesk for help if necessary. We shall see.

Anyway, back to the roving. I have to say that the course exceeded my expectations. I wasn’t entirely sure what there was to say about roving that wasn’t obvious, but it turned out that there was quite a lot.

First of all we talked about the role of a ‘rover’, their purpose and why there is a need for them. This generated some interesting discussion about the visibility (or lack of) of library staff, particularly in a large building such as the one we work in, the problems library users face when trying to use the library and its resources, and so on. But, really, the point of roving can (arguably) be summarised as ‘taking the service to the customers’.  Also, we can use roving to promote and raise awareness of services, and help library users to make full use of the services we offer. So, roving seems like a pretty good idea so far.

A key point that came out of the whole day was that we have to see roving as the primary way of delivering our service(s) – not just an add-on, which is how it tends to be seen at the moment. People from teams other than the one team who currently rove attended the course, so it’ll be interesting to see whether or not they are more involved in roving next term, particularly in light of the above point.

We went on to list the benefits of roving in the library – for library users and for library staff. We listed such things as:

  • library users feel more confident, happier and become more self-sufficient
  • library users make better use of the library and its resources – get more out of the service
  • roving helps form better relationships between library users and library staff
  • roving helps library staff to better understand the needs of library users, and also how their ‘office’ job fits in to the wider work of the library
  • roving helps improve staff knowledge – if they don’t know the answer to a question they should find out the answer
  • roving relieves pressure on staffed points at busy times
  • library users’ experience of the library improves, they improve their knowledge and therefore will hopefully do better in their studies

Next, we looked at what we thought were the key skills and traits that are most useful for library staff doing roving. Sadly, I seem to have left my notes for this part at work. However, I think the list included such things as knowledge, friendliness, empathy, organisation, confidence, etc. Following that activity, we had to list what we thought might be some common barriers to roving. These range from a lack of confidence on the part of staff, to a perception that we have too many other things to do, to insufficient staffing, and a lack of support from managers.

Unsurprisingly, the discussion about possible barriers to roving  and ways in which we could break them down went on for quite a while. Unfortunately, a lot of us feel overloaded with office-based work at various times of the year (and all the time in some cases), and it’s then that roving can feel like something that gets in the way of other things we feel should take priority. The trainer’s argument was that roving is always a priority because it’s the  primary way in which we deliver our services to library users, so we should do it however busy we may be with office-based work. This is true – roving is important, and we need to see it as such and give it the time and effort necessary to do it properly. However, as we argued on the day, we also need the support of our line managers in terms of realising that we’re just not going to be able to do our other work at the same speed as we would previously have done. This may mean altering deadlines or being more understanding about why we haven’t been able to get things done. [It may also mean we have to manage our time better, I realise that.] Unfortunately, I don’t think this was really understood by the trainer – she thought we were talking about support for roving, which of course we need, but we also need support for our ‘back room’ work in the ways described above.

It’s difficult to find a balance. One way would be to allow more cross-team working, so that those going through busy times could be more practically supported by those who are going through a quiet patch. Each team within Library Services goes through peaks and troughs in terms of workloads, but at the moment we can’t help each other out efficiently and make the best use of staff time according to the situation because we don’t all have access to the necessary parts of the library management system. It can be quite frustrating at times, both for those who need help and for those who want to help!

The next part of the day took a new turn. Instead of focusing on roving as such, we talked more about people’s personalities and the ways in which these can affect our attitudes and approach to roving, and how different ‘types’ of people prefer to be approached (or not!) by roving library staff. We did a short test, which involved making a jigsaw and then found out what ‘type’ of person we are. One can, according to this particular form of self-assessment, have a red, yellow, green or blue personality type. [The test was like a much simpler version of the Myers-Briggs test.]

It was an interesting exercise, and the importance of different people’s personalities was not really something I’d previously thought about in connection with roving – at least not consciously – particularly in terms of library users and how they might prefer to be approached. We looked at each type of personality and how they might present themselves in the library, how they might act when needing or asking for help, and what the best way to approach them might be. For example, ‘red’ type people may not like to be approached at all, because they prefer to get on and do things themselves and not ‘waste time’ (in their perception) asking for help. On the other hand, ‘green’ people might be too shy to ask for help even when they need it. We also  talked about body language in relation to approaching and helping library users, for example how we can try to read it to assess when someone may need help or when they’re perfectly happy on their own.

It was all a lot more complicated than I expected it to be, but also a lot more interesting. As with all training, I just hope we can use it in practice and become more effective rovers.