Myers Briggs MBTI's Theory of Psychological Types

History of the Theory of Psychological Types

The study of psychological types dates back more than 60 years, when the Swiss-born psychiatrist CG Jung suggested that human behavior was not random but in fact predictable and therefore classifiable. Jung initially disagreed with many of his colleagues because he suggested that the categories proposed by him for which he coined some new names were not based on mental illness, abnormalities, or disproportionate drives. Instead, Jung said that differences in behavior, which are so obvious at first glance, are the result of preferences related to the basic functions that our personalities perform throughout our lives. These preferences emerge early, forming the basis of our personalities.

Such preferences, Jung said, become the center of our attractions and dislikes for people, tasks and other events throughout life. (Jung's work, Psychological Types of 1923, brilliantly describes his classifications. However, unless you are a very serious student of type psychology or a masochist, this book is probably not to the liking of the ordinary reader.

Fortunately, for Jung's work, two women, neither of them psychologists, were interested in classifying people's observable behaviors. One of them, Katharine Briggs, had begun at the beginning of the century, independently of Jung, to classify people, based on their different lifestyles. She simply concluded that different types of people approach life differently. When Jung's work published in English appeared in 1923, Briggs put aside her own work and became an exhaustive student of Jung's. Along with her exceptionally talented daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, she spent the 1930s observing and developing improvements in the way these differences were measured.Motivated by the outbreak of World War II and by the observation that many people, during the war, performed tasks that were not appropriate to their abilities, the two women set out to design a psychological instrument that could explain the differences, according to the Theory of Jung's Personal Preferences, in scientifically rigorous and reliable terms. Thus was born the Myers-Briggs "Type Indicator" (MBTI). The idea was that the MBTI instrument could be used to establish individual preferences and then promote a more constructive use of differences between people. Jung's theory has become very popular since the 1980s, largely due to the achievements of the mother-daughter team.The two women set out to design a psychological instrument that could explain the differences, according to Jung's Theory of Personal Preferences, in scientifically rigorous and reliable terms. Thus was born the Myers-Briggs "Type Indicator" (MBTI). The idea was that the MBTI instrument could be used to establish individual preferences and then promote a more constructive use of differences between people. Jung's theory has become very popular since the 1980s, largely due to the achievements of the mother-daughter team.The two women set out to design a psychological instrument that could explain the differences, according to Jung's Theory of Personal Preferences, in scientifically rigorous and reliable terms. Thus was born the Myers-Briggs "Type Indicator" (MBTI). The idea was that the MBTI instrument could be used to establish individual preferences and then promote a more constructive use of differences between people. Jung's theory has become very popular since the 1980s, largely due to the achievements of the mother-daughter team.The idea was that the MBTI instrument could be used to establish individual preferences and then promote a more constructive use of differences between people. Jung's theory has become very popular since the 1980s, largely due to the achievements of the mother-daughter team.The idea was that the MBTI instrument could be used to establish individual preferences and then promote a more constructive use of differences between people. Jung's theory has become very popular since the 1980s, largely due to the achievements of the mother-daughter team.

Today the MBTI is one of the most widely used psychological instruments. According to the Consulting Psychologists Press, publisher of the instrument, more than 2 million people took the test in 1999. It has been translated into Japanese, Spanish, French, German and other languages.

The Birth of a Guy

According to Typological Theory, each of us is born with a predisposition for certain personality preferences. There are four pairs of preference alternatives. You are:

Extrovert (E) vs Introvert (I) Sensory (S) vs Intuitive (N) Rational (T) vs Emotional (F) Qualifier (J) vs Perceptual (P)

Please note that these 8 labels reflect preferences. By way of analogy, think of right-handed versus left-handed. If you are right-handed, it does not mean that you never use your left hand, it simply means that you prefer your right. And you may prefer it very much, in which case you will make relatively little use of your left hand or you may prefer it almost nothing, in which case it will be close to being ambidextrous. The same is true about the preferences listed above. You may prefer one feature a lot and another just a little. As we examine these preferences by describing the two extremes of each pair, you may find that you identify with both. Within each pair, however, there is one that you prefer the most, that you lean on, and that you naturally tend to relapse on.

According to Typological Theory, each of us develops a preference early in life and becomes attached to it. And the more we exercise those preferences, intentionally or unintentionally, the more we lean on them with strength and confidence. This does not mean that we are unable to use our non-preferences from time to time. In fact, the more we mature non-preferences, they add richness and dimension to our lives. However, they never take the place of our original preferences. In this way Extraverts never become Introverts and vice versa. (Like the left-handed and right-handed analogy). One does not become the other even if he learns to use his non-preferred hand more effectively.

Another way of looking at this is by comparing the individual development of the guy with a house. The Guy is like the foundation of a house: he doesn't really undergo many radical changes throughout his life. The rest of the house and especially the part that others see, can be compared with our behavior, the external manifestations of our kind. Over time the house undergoes many changes, additional rooms, painting, landscaping, interior renovations and everything in between. The house after 20 years of living in it, has changed significantly from what it was when it was built - but the foundation is still intact. The same goes for our personalities and behavior. Over the years we go through many changes and we can seem very different to a friend that we have not seen in years.But like the foundation of the house, our personality remains fairly intact and the changes are for the most part purely behavioral. This does not rule out real change, growth is development, it does not imply that we are all hopelessly rigid. It means that change comes slowly to my deepest aspects and that producing change and growth in the most malleable part of our lives is a full-time job every day. Just managing yourself and your own growth is a busy day, without trying…..It means that change comes slowly to my deepest aspects and that producing change and growth in the most malleable part of our lives is a full-time job every day. Just managing yourself and your own growth is a busy day, without trying…..It means that change comes slowly to my deepest aspects and that producing change and growth in the most malleable part of our lives is a full-time job every day. Just managing yourself and your own growth is a busy day, without trying…..

We actually hold that the key to managing others effectively is managing yourself first. The more you know about yourself, the more you can relate to others, from a position of trust, confidence and strength. So our intention in this book is to direct your energy toward yourself first - where Type Observation skills can be used to take advantage of each waking hour.

How does Type Observation work?

You. Do you prefer people who are the same as you or who are different? If you are like many people, initially you will be attracted to people who are different, but over time you will find that those differences do not get along. In fact, whether with a boss, employee, or customer after the initial attraction has passed, you may find that you have little tolerance for these differences. If it were within your means, even you would demand that these differences be simply eliminated: Settle down or get out. If you are not in a position to make such demands, you will simply become distant and indifferent.

It is curious that we believe that we prefer differences when in reality few of us are willing to make concessions regarding them. Although we say and truly believe in the need to "treat each person according to his nature," we nevertheless resist those who choose to do things their own way. In the framework of an organization, this non-conformity can be seen as unfair behavior, in the best of cases, or as something dangerous and destructive. But with Observing the Types you can gain enough understanding to understand the appeal of any of these differences and develop the patience to allow them to exist for the benefit of individuals as well as the entire organization.

The process begins with understanding yourself. Type Observation allows you to identify your personal preferences and how similar or different you are from those with whom you work. You can identify where those similarities and differences are harmonious and where they cause discord.

With this in mind, let's take a look at how your preferences are shaped and what they mean to your life. This self-understanding is the key to Observing Types.

How to use the Profiles?

Profiles can be used in different ways:

First and foremost, they can serve to validate your personality type. Either you have taken the MBTI or you have just tentatively identified your four preferences from the test presented here. Profiles can support your findings by showing how the four letters interact to create a unique personality type. By reading your profile and if you agree with most of the statements you will surely have painted a tight picture of yourself. It may be helpful if as you read the profile you want to underline and highlight those parts that you strongly agree or disagree with. Then consider sharing your profile with someone who knows you well, perhaps a co-worker, a boss or a subordinate.Consider asking that person to highlight the aspects of their profile that they agree or disagree with the most. This will give you powerful feedback on what others perceive and how you perceive yourself. This exercise can also work in a group situation. By sharing profiles and having them on hand at crucial moments - before meetings, at deadlines, during crises - I can help keep communication open and allow each individual to use their strengths and be aware of their particular weaknesses. possible of the profiles is to be able to learn to deal with individuals with whom they have difficulties at work. If you know or can at least guess their four preferences, reading their profiles can give you some indication about the cause of the problem.This can open the door to communication and problem solving.

Building an Effective Work Team

No matter where you work in the company or what you do, you are part of a team. The company itself represents a team to reach a goal. Each department or division also represents a team. In the same way, small groups of people working together within those departments also represent a team. In each of these cases the success of the team is directly associated with the efforts of the individual members and with the way in which these members get along and work with each other. Type Watching gets to the heart of the question of how to build and sustain effective teams. Success in the 90's and the 21st century as we believe,It will result from the ability of companies to produce more with fewer human resources and to promote collaboration over competition within the same companies.

We see examples of this around the world. Departments within a company that previously competed or worked independently now find that they must work together. Hardly competing companies come together to more efficiently produce things that both need. Whole countries are teaming up to form more powerful common markets that lower and remove barriers to entrepreneurship. All of this demands people who relate in new ways.

The irony of all this is that those most likely to rise to the top management positions - Introverts-Rational-Raters (ITJs) are the least naturally given to motivating the spirit of teamwork. For them you are either on the team or you are not - and there is only one team: theirs.

So how do we build teams that are collaborative and productive in this complex environment? And how do we ensure that those who are not by nature team players dedicate more than words to this process?

An obstacle to team building is different perspectives on rewards and penalties. Suppose everyone understands and accepts the need for rewards and punishments. In reality, the importance assigned to rewards and punishments in companies varies according to individual Types. So what may seem natural or appropriate for one type may be ineffective and unnecessary for another. Furthermore, the predominant type who work their way up to Management-Rational-Raters (JW) positions are the class that does not view rewards as motivators for people. T's prefer to believe that the organization itself is motivational enough. Safe work and regular pay is your reward.

You often hear "There is no need to reward what they are expected to do." Or "it is not the people that count, the important thing is productivity." Or "Why should I pat someone to do something for which they are paid?" Finally, «You. I don't have to like her. I don't have to care about you either. If you want to collect your salary, do your job and leave your personal affairs at the door when you come to work. "

Different Types enter the job market and remain in different positions for reasons related to their personality preferences. An Extrovert-Emotional (EF) for example, who likes the people with whom he works will prefer to stay in that environment rather than be promoted simply for the money. A Perceptive (P) who is given freedom and flexibility will be much more productive in such an environment and will think carefully about promotion to a more rigid position. And a Qualifier (J) will be willing to go anywhere as long as they leave a place that is disorganized, lacking in direction, and lacking an authority structure.

The management style that we think is most effective is the one that recommends looking for the good in employees, rewarding their achievements, helping them correct their mistakes, and valuing each person and their contributions to the team as an integral part of the company and the company's product. company. Each employee's signature is somewhere on the final product and without that signature the product would be incomplete. This kind of manager recognizes and allows for differences; Awards are given according to individual strengths and not according to system rules and regulations. If what people do are products or services - and that is what it is - and if productivity is the result of what people do and how they do it, then the manager's attention must be directed towards the people.

The bad news is that most managers, typologically at least, are not "people people" and therefore are not good team players. They have great control needs, they believe that the only way to get the job done is by doing it themselves, and they think that confronting interpersonal issues is a waste of time.

So we are faced with a dilemma: Since the guys most likely to reach managerial positions are the least naturally inclined to be team players, how do we go about getting them to do a good job together? The solution has to do with taking advantage of the skills that those who occupy those "top" positions have proven and appealing to their high sense of responsibility.

Before we get into the details, let's briefly see how the eight preferences relate to teamwork.

Extroverts (E) and Introverts (I)

E's and I's approach cooperation and teamwork from opposite directions, leading to all sorts of problems, from low productivity to poor social interaction before, during, and after work hours.

When it comes to being a player within a team, Extroverts (E) can demand more time and attention, draining others around them and can seem very disruptive. Others may view them as either self-centered and fickle little kids who never get enough attention. Clearly these labels are not conducive to promoting cooperation.

Introverts (I), on the other hand, tend to retain a great deal of information to themselves. Others interpret this behavior with suspicion, thinking that the Introvert tries to control the computer through the retention of information - or that the Introvert does not care in the least.

Of course, understanding even a little about the Observation of Typologies will allow us to understand that none of the previous interpretations is correct. Still, it is common and leads to everyday behaviors and nicknames that block effective teamwork.

In order to cut through this type of behavior, both parties must engage in basic and simple communication. For example, it is legitimate for an Extrovert to require or even demand some time for extroversion. But the Extrovert must learn to clarify his needs: "Let me take a couple of minutes to discuss some ideas with you." "May I ask you to tell me what your thoughts are on this?" I'm just thinking out loud. Don't take me at face value. Introverts should of course be open about what's on their minds in turn: "I'll gladly do it in half an hour when I'm done with this document." Or, "I may not be the best person to give you advice on that matter."

One of the big mistakes that Extroverts make is that if they don't see someone dealing with another person, they simply think they are not busy. Therefore it is okay to interrupt them when they are sitting in their office reading just because there is no other person they are talking to. You can imagine what an Extrovert thinks of someone who is sitting there not even reading but "reflecting." Clearly that person needs to be doing something more useful - like listening to the ideas the Extrovert comes up with in the moment.

Introverts on their side have to make their requests - usually for a little peace and silence so that they can think, reason, reflect, sort things out or whatever they need to do. Although you would think that Extroverts would be better prepared to make such requests due to the fact that they are more likely to express their needs verbally, in fact Introverts are quite capable of expressing their needs. Since Introverts are less likely to spontaneously speak their minds, when they do finally speak their words often have more impact. The problem for both "E" and "I" is that because their respective needs - to verbalize or to reflect - are so obvious to themselves, both parties tend to assume that the other understands them. As with so many other misunderstandings,both end up in opposite positions. Instead of forming a team they are competitors.

The Sensory (S) and the Intuitive (N)

The differences in opinions that Intuitive and Sensory have about how to build a team can be comical if it weren't so problematic. Sensory, who tend to take things literally, have trouble understanding what team building has to do with the issue at hand. Teams, after all, show up on the court and want to win the game. That is not the case here at work; everyone has a job to do and that's what they pay you for. So team building becomes a waste of time, another distraction, another excuse for not getting things done. "If I didn't waste so much time in meetings on how working together I could finish my work more quickly," a Sensory would lament.It's not that Sensorians can't see the value of team building at work. Give them a good metaphor - that the CEO is an advocate who passes an assignment to a manager (midfielder) who relies on his team to push a project forward toward a goal (the opposing goal). Once they get the concept, the Sensors will be the ones to lead the attack across the playing field. But getting to this point may require more than a few coaching sessions.the Sensory will be the ones to lead the attack across the playing field. But getting to this point may require more than a few coaching sessions.the Sensory will be the ones to lead the attack across the playing field. But getting to this point may require more than a few coaching sessions.

For the Intuitive, the true image of a team is one that inspires and excites. If everyone captured that enthusiasm, the Intuitive thinks, productivity, profits and pride would skyrocket. But while you are enthusiastic about this concept, this is just that - a concept. Going from concept to action may require more responsibility than many Intuitive would be interested in assuming. For them teamwork is something that is good for everyone except themselves. They are like parents who take their children to Sunday school but never think of attending themselves. Like Sensory, Intuitive can also become effective team members, but it may take some effort to move beyond the thought process to action.

The Rationals (T) and the Emotionals (F)

While Rationals see teamwork as something that accomplishes the task, Emotionals see it as how well people work together to accomplish the task. It doesn't take much imagination to see how this difference can lead to some headaches. If a group specifies the work but the individuals involved end up not speaking, this also falls within what would be a good team effort, according to the opinion of the Rational. Compliance determines the effectiveness of the team. Of course, such a scenario is almost close to disaster for an Emotional, for whom group spirit is key. It is the Emotional who says, »If a group has cohesion and a sense of purpose, they can accomplish anything from hitting a deadline to collecting money for a charity.

We believe that the drama of this same dynamic underlies the differences between the American and Japanese management models. Historically the American business philosophy has been that of the classic Rational (T) model where people are expendable: “We pay you well. If you don't want to work, we'll hire someone else who wants to - or we'll replace you with a machine. » Personal problems, laziness, and even coffee breaks are frowned upon if not outright prohibited. (Those of you under the age of fifty probably can't remember that just four decades ago coffee breaks were the subject of negotiation between management and unions.) Relative to this philosophy is the management belief: "You. I don't have to like you as long as you do your job. "

This is in contrast to the Japanese F (Emotional) -oriented model, which places great emphasis on team communication, individual affirmation, and the belief that when it comes to ideas and productivity, the whole group is bigger than the team. sum of its parts. Regardless of their personal feelings, each member of the team shows concern for others, appreciates the contribution of each one, and recognizes that if each member of the team does not do their part, success - personal, organizational and societal- it will be difficult to reach.

Unlike the other differences in preferences, this one is more difficult to overcome because it reflects opposing and deeply engraved philosophies: products you see. Processes, head you see. Heart, you see homework. People. Obviously none of these philosophies is better than the others; both are needed - products AND services, head AND heart, and so on. History shows - and common sense would dictate - that a company that operates without esprit de corps will not do well in its market. The reverse is also true: a high esprit de corps without attention to detail and deadlines creates an unpredictable company to meet your goals.

The observation of typologies is the bridge that justifies the need to have both philosophies - that a successful company is one that balances its logical orientation to the task (Rational) with a recognition of the human element required to fulfill those tasks (Feeling). This underscores the fact that people do not need to change their personality preferences to fit in - even if their preferences are at a numerical disadvantage to those of the majority - but rather assert that part of their contribution lies in being who they are.

We cannot overemphasize the need to build teams that reflect both Rational and Emotional dynamics. American business history is full of examples of companies that relied on the Rational (T) model - that quality speaks for itself - underestimating the more subjective, emotional aspects of their markets. Companies that appeal to both the T and F models have been successful even though their products were "top" in their markets. General Electric is an example of a company whose products, which are not necessarily superior in technology to those of its competitors, have led the market because it has been able to successfully touch the emotional fibers of the buying public - it has known how to "show the good things of the lifetime".

It must be remembered that 50% of the public that works and buys are Emotional and that the same percentage are Rational. This means that at least half of the American population wants to feel comfortable with the quality of life they have both at work and at home and in relation to what they buy. They will choose product A over product B if it makes them feel better, often without caring about cost, quality, or other key factors. This also applies to where they shop. Nordstrom, which is a department chain in Seattle, has had phenomenal success across the country, largely based on factors beyond the products it markets, from the use of elegantly dressed musicians sitting at a piano playing, or employees who they make you feel like the most important customer of the day.The company has consistently outperformed its more established competitors in all shopping centers.

The challenge then, considering that most companies are full of Rationals at the top of their management structure, is to find a way to pay more attention to the Emotional side of the company. We are not talking about turning Rationals into Emotionals - this is contrary to the theory of Typology Observation. We do not defend that your hiring processes are strictly based on the differences of typologies. This is another thing to avoid. The secret is to find the Emotionals within your organization and include them appropriately in decision-making teams.

Where do we find them? A good place to start is in your development, training, and other health and people services departments. Statistically these departments attract Emotional types in a higher proportion than the rest of the company. Another place is to look at the non-managerial female workforce. Statistically two-thirds of American women are Emotional. Research has revealed that most women in senior corporate positions are typologically similar to their male counterparts - ie Rational-Qualifiers. But women who have not yet emerged into these positions are more likely than men in those positions to provide a subjective element to their teams. Even TJ women, due to their social role as mothers,they can probably bring some degree of subjectivity to their teams.

There is no question that finding the right people is easier said than done. You can't just invite a couple of girls from the secretary pool to your executive team session and expect them to speak their minds. Most likely, you will be dissatisfied with the answers, if you get any. It's not that these women have nothing to offer. What happens is that there is a long history of barriers that must be overcome, the biggest perhaps is that of trust - that the women in this place are more than decorative figures. This can take time and many meetings until these new participants feel more comfortable to contribute freely. So there is no quick fix; what we suggest is an evolution, a long-term change in the way your company behaves and makes decisions.

The Qualifiers (J) and the Perceptive (P)

Even considering the importance of the Rational - Emotional dynamic, what makes teams succeed or fail is the Qualifier - Perceptual dimension, at least on a superficial level. Often the Qualifiers (J) with their need to achieve closure and to be in control appear to the eyes like poor team players. The Perceptive's incessant need for alternatives makes them appear less committed to the team's goals.

Imagine the scene of a typical team meeting. At nine o'clock the Raters are seated in their place, pens ready, ready to begin (having read the agendas sent before the meeting). Five minutes later the Js begin to feel somewhat annoyed by the inconsideration of those who are late. The last of the Perceptive shows up at 9:17, apologizes for being late, looks at the agenda for the first time, and suggests some changes. At 9:43, the team divided into several fields:

the field "I'm going to give you for being late", where anything the latecomer says is automatically disqualified

the "vote for anything to end this meeting" field in which commitment to the project is obscured by the feeling that the meeting will never end

the field "let's not make hasty decisions" that opposes the folly of the previous two to make decisions immediately

the field "is not time to make a cut" where you are thinking about where you will go to have lunch since work without fun leads to an unproductive team. In this way, what started as a genuine team effort, within the first hour it becomes a competitive group with conflicting individuals each working on their own agendas. How to avoid this - or at least manage it when it occurs?

We admit that you probably can't help it - P's are P's, and they act on their own times, which means that a 9:00 meeting doesn't really start until they show up - whatever time. You can't change this much, except alert everyone to the importance of being on time. In fact, meetings should start at the time they are scheduled, regardless of who is there. Let the latecomers manage to get on the subject rather than hold onto others until they arrive. If you lead the session, you can schedule to start the meeting with some less critical points so that those who are late do not miss the crucial points and that those who have been punctual have the feeling of mission accomplished and of achievement.But don't reveal that you are doing this otherwise no one will be there when they should.

Even if everyone arrives on time, JP dynamics can create chaos. Js tend to make closed statements or ask questions that are actually judgments - "We can't do this, can we? Either way, Js often give the impression that their mind has already made a decision, even when this is not the case. Lo J actually expect you to challenge them and give them more information. But others on the team may feel bad about this seemingly closed-minded attitude.

The Ps, on the other hand, ask a lot of questions or make open comments, unspecified statements that are basically judgments "It sounds like the plan has a lot of things." That is the P's way of saying something like "I oppose the plan because it is too complicated." The Js are frustrated that the Ps don't seem to be saying what they really think. Js often complain "If you have an opinion, I'd like to hear it." In both cases, the problem is a serious lack of communication that puts the team effort at risk.

The fact is that these problems can be avoided or eliminated; they are part of human nature. Also in the midst of this frustration there are opportunities - for P's to help J's not reach decisions too quickly, and for J's to collaborate so P's to come to a close and conclusion on issues. The challenge is to maximize the opportunities and minimize the potential for stress. Later in this chapter we will offer some specific ideas on how to increase understanding of JPs and achieve effective teamwork.

Four Steps to Effective Teams

As you may have realized by now, the benefits of Typology Observation for team building are only limited to your imagination. There are as many techniques and solutions for equipment problems as there are equipment itself.

Still, there are four questions to ask yourself about any team effort that can help you to make sure you are on the right track and to diagnose potential problem areas.

Are the guys represented on the team the best to do the job?

Let's look at a team formed to raise money for an alumni association. Doing this job - raising funds - requires a diversity of types and skills. For example, you will need Extroverts to sell the program to alumni. You must make sure that you have the types that are going to generate the alternative ways of raising funds (Intuitive-Perceptive) but there must also be a balance of types that will put their share of perseverance and persist until reaching the commitment letters (Sensory-Qualifiers). If these fundamental guys are not team members, your best efforts may be wasted. The time invested in determining the rates of each member will pay off.

Not all teams require all preferences. Some kinds of goals are better achieved by teams with more homogeneous than different types. For example, if the goal of a group is to generate ideas in a brainstorming session, the more Extroverts and Perceptives you have, the better it will work. If the goal is to inventory supplies in the warehouse, the greater amount of Sensory and especially Sensory Perceptual that you have, the better.

Within the team, are the right guys doing the right job?

Often times, out of loyalty or habit, people don't say they have certain special talents that aren't being used. Those talents can come in handy for the task at hand, only if the talents are recognized and people are encouraged to put them into play. The fundraising team, for example, may have an Introvert whose writing skills can make him the ideal person to write an outstanding cover letter. But if the Introvert is traditionally a "number eater" in the organization, he or she may not volunteer - or be summoned - for this job.

Before the team progresses too far in the work, it would be convenient for the leader to convene for an evaluation of the available resources: who has the talent for this assignment; Who thinks he or she could try something different (and would be good at trying) - writing, talking on the phone, selling, and so on. By the way, don't forget to include yourself in the evaluation. If it turns out that your natural abilities are hindering more than helping, don't be afraid to get out of the way and let others with better abilities take over.

In what way, typologically speaking, will we control our progress at work?

Failing to track progress is the mistake of many teams. Not only is it important to have a healthy dose of Qualifiers to make sure you are on the right track but also to have enough Insights to ensure the team wastes time going in the wrong direction. You need enough Introverts to keep your listening skills sharp and enough Emotional so that people's ideas are not dismissed out of hand. Our alumni fundraising organization would do well to have some Emotional and Perceptive - for example, individuals who can help get through the tough times by having everyone take a pizza break when too much work has been done with little result.

In the case of Projects, is there someone who can help determine when the Project has been completed?

One of the common dilemmas of any team is that projects have a habit of stretching forever. They can suck up people's time with meetings that lead nowhere or reports that no one reads. Even if the project was completed months - or even years - the team can continue to meet, just because of habit or the camaraderie that grew over time. This occurs regardless of the success or failure of the project: if the team achieved its goal, they want to sit down together and congratulate each other; If they did not achieve the goals, the members want to meet together to mourn and console each other. So it helps to have some Raters and probably some Extroverts to speak for the team and say, “We're done. Let's part ways now and get on with the rest of our lives. "

The differences in opinions that Intuitive and Sensory have about how to build a team can be comical if it weren't so problematic. Sensory, who tend to take things literally, have trouble understanding what team building has to do with the issue at hand. Teams, after all, show up on the court and want to win the game. That is not the case here at work; everyone has a job to do and that's what they pay you for. So team building becomes a waste of time, another distraction, another excuse for not getting things done. "If I didn't waste so much time in meetings on how working together I could finish my work more quickly," a Sensory would lament.It's not that Sensorians can't see the value of building effective work teams. Give them a good metaphor - that the CEO is an advocate who passes an assignment to a manager (midfielder) who relies on his team to push a project forward toward a goal (the opposing goal). Once they get the concept, the Sensors will be the ones to lead the attack across the playing field. But getting to this point may require more than a few orientation sessions.the Sensory will be the ones to lead the attack across the playing field. But getting to this point may require more than a few orientation sessions.the Sensory will be the ones to lead the attack across the playing field. But getting to this point may require more than a few orientation sessions.

Download the original file