Newsletter #15

 

In this issue:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and Careers for INFPs and ESTJs

About the Strong Interest Inventory®: Artistic Types and Job Frequency

About the FIRO-B™: Team Conflict III

 

Careers for INFPs and ESTJs

In this issue we'll look at two personality types and specific jobs for both. The purpose here is not to list all the jobs that might be interesting. Instead, we're going to focus on what about the jobs appeals to each type. I picked opposite types to illustrate the differences and why one career could appeal to one type yet be a poor choice for another. Other combinations have been covered in past newsletter issues.

We'll start with INFPs. For this type I selected the career of psychologist. What is it about the career that makes it a good match for INFPs? Well, as in most good matches, the career makes use of INFPs' common characteristics such as good listening and communication skills, adaptability, flexibility, the focus on possibilities, and working in a way that supports human development. Many INFPs have well-developed writing and speaking skills, which are advantageous in this profession. For a lot of INFPs, a satisfying career has to give them room to grow and learn, as well as variety and intellectual stimulation. INFPs frequently have deep, strong feelings, and a great deal of personal warmth, although these qualities might not be visible at the first meeting with one. They rarely enjoy working in a bureaucracy or highly structured organization. Many INFPs find careers where they work and develop close relationships with other caring and creative people quite satisfying. Likewise, many INFPs feel best working in a job that has meaning and purpose and where they can help others. Increasing personal understanding and alleviating human suffering are two goals many find worth pursuing. Along with the above, many INFPs find that some amount of privacy and time to work alone are important. INFPs can be quite idealistic, open-minded, and tolerant, all qualities that are good to have in psychologist.

Let's contrast the above with a career suitable for an ESTJ: school principal. As with the other dominant extraverted thinking type (ENTJ), ESTJs show up in great numbers in managerial and administrative positions. Why is principal such a good match? Well, ESTJs tend to use tough-minded, fact-oriented, and goal-directed analysis to provide direction and leadership. Usually, they have no trouble applying their standards of what is fair, correct, efficient, and sensible to the situation at hand. Decision making seems to come naturally to many ESTJs, and they usually base their decisions on known facts rather than future possibilities or theory. ESTJs often like careers with tangible and practical results, where it's clear what's working and what isn't. If things are not working well, you can often count on them to make the needed changes. Many are excellent organizers who respect the rules and pay close attention to the details. For many ESTJs, working in an organization with a clear structure, standard procedures, stability, a lot of personal interaction, and hierarchy makes things easier. They like to use their skills to keep the system running smoothly. ESTJs tend to be hands-on types, who want to do something useful and achieve some measure of success. They are often quite conscientious and want to work in a job with clear, objective standards.

You might be one of these two types and never have considered either profession. That's perfectly okay. It's more important to see what makes these jobs attractive to these types. If you ask enough people, you're bound to find every type represented in every profession. For example, one study of psychologists showed about 18% were INFPs, while ESTJs made up about 4% of the group. Conversely, in a study of school principals, about 1% were INFPs and about 26% were ESTJs. Again, finding a career that matches your interests is more important than picking one from a list for your type.

 

About the Strong Interest Inventory: Artistic Types and Job Frequency

Many people who take the Strong on the web are Artistic types. Conversely, Realistic types are much less frequently represented among those who take the test. A person might conclude that Artistic types are more frequent in the population and therefore would be more likely to take the test. That's unlikely to be the case. More probable is the difficulty Artistic types face in finding work that matches their interests.

The latest edition of the "Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes" lists 12,756 professions. Of that list, 8,465 are Realistic (66.4%) and only 180 are Artistic (1.4%). The simple truth is there are far more Realistic jobs than any other type. Investigative and Social jobs make us small percentages as well (3% and 5%). It's no surprise that those who are interested in these occupations would have a more difficult time finding work than Realistic types.

It's interesting to note the Dictionary lists no occupations at all for these codes: ARC, AIC, ACR, ACI, and ACE. These codes have five or fewer occupations: ARS, AIR, AIS, AIE, ASC, AEC, and ACS. Out of the 20 possible combinations for Artistic jobs, only two have more than 20 job titles: ASE (28) and AES (74).

Let's contrast that with the Realistic lists: There are no combinations with zero jobs. Three combinations have over 1,000 job titles each: RES (1,755), REC (1,343), and RCE (1,824). No other scale has more than 1,000 jobs for a single code. Closest are CRE (677) and ESR with 433 professions.

If we look at two-letter codes, the difference is even clearer. There are 4,027 RE and 2,787 RC jobs. There are six IA, nine IC, nine AI, and two AC jobs on the complete list.

When there is a large number of interested people and few jobs, the increased competition makes it harder to get a job in that field and depresses the pay. An example I often use is actor. Many people would pay to appear in a commercial or movie. If that's the case, how much can an unknown actor expect to make for working in a commercial? Not much, since there is so much competition and many people would do it for free.

As a result, many Artistic types struggle to find work they like. Many work in "normal" jobs and pursue their interests as hobbies or avocations. Others keep trying until they find a place where they can use their talents in a way that is satisfying. Each person is different and has to see what works best for him or her.

 

The FIRO-B: Team Conflict III

One of the many uses of the FIRO-B is to help teams work together better. Conflict is unavoidable whenever people come together, particularly in a work environment. This time we'll look at several common types of conflict and which FIRO-B results likely indicate this could be happening to your team.

First, let's look at the scenario where team members are defensive when receiving feedback from outside sources. This can happen in groups with high levels of Expressed Inclusion and low scores on Wanted Inclusion. Sometimes this is called "bunker mentality." It's us against those outside of our group. It's quite similar to groupthink, which can plague groups of highly similar individuals. In this case, the group members reinforce already formulated opinions rather than considering outside information or perspectives.

Another common occurrence in groups is holding meetings for which some members do nothing to prepare and refuse to participate in the small tasks needed to move forward. For some people, the team tasks appear too irrelevant, so they have no interest in helping the group or assuming responsibility. This can happen when the group's goals and actions seem too distant from the daily work or priorities of the organization. You'll often see this in groups with high scores on Total Inclusion Needs and low scores on Wanted Control.

Lastly, you might work in a group that seems to accomplish little except in meetings. The purpose of the meeting appears to be doing the work rather than reporting on or coordinating future efforts. Groups who score high on Total Inclusion Needs and low scores on Expressed Control are most likely to exhibit this pattern. In such groups, the purpose for the team working together gets lost in the need to have meetings and do work during them. This system is rarely very effective. It takes a great deal of time and effort with few results.