Newsletter #18

 

In this issue:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and ISFJs and ENTPs in Organizations

About the Strong Interest Inventory®: Differences Between Adjacent Types

About the FIRO-B™: Team Transitions I

 

ISFJs and ENTPs in Organizations

This time we'll consider ISFJs and ENTPs and examine where they might fit best and some of the possible weak spots for each.

There are many similarities between ISFJs and ISTJs. Both types tend to be responsible, conscientious, loyal, hard-working, and detail-oriented people. ISFJs are said to be sympathetic, considerate, and kind. Patience is a virtue many of them apply to the workplace. Practicality is another common tendency, as is a focus on the needs of people in the organization. ISFJs tend to work behind the scenes. They often like to be #2, instead of #1. They generally are supportive and enjoy well-structured tasks and workplaces. Their work tends to be thorough and they are often good at follow-through. ISFJs are usually private people who enjoy quiet and calm workplaces. They tend to have a service orientation towards their work.

Potential trouble spots can be a tendency to catastrophize, particularly in the face of rapid, radical change. ISFJs tend to be cautious types, so big change makes them uncomfortable. They can appear to others as being too soft, or not assertive enough, especially if they are presenting new ideas to the group. ISFJs rarely tout their own accomplishments, so can be undervalued, despite their considerable contributions to their organizations. They tend to trust experience above most other forms of knowledge, so they can struggle when a new situation arises that requires them to be flexible and adaptable.

ENTPs are more likely to look at problems as challenges to be overcome, rather than something that ruins a finely-tuned system. ENTPs are famous for changing things just for the sake of change, or to see what happens. One sentence that upsets them is, "But that's how we've always done it here." ENTPs tend to focus on the future and possibilities, and are often independent. They enjoy working on complex or complicated problems. They often avoid bureaucracy, and want to work with highly competent people. ENTPs usually enjoy work environments that reward risk-taking, freedom of action, and flexibility.

Some areas that can be difficult for ENTPs include focusing so much on models and theories that they forget the details and reality of the situation. They can underestimate the time and resources needed to make their plan real. ENTPs are often said to be highly competitive, so if their workplace doesn't reward or require that trait, there can be a mismatch. ENTPs can take on too many tasks and burn out from too many competing demands. They frequently resist standard operating procedures and rules. Sometimes they overlook the contribution of others towards the organization's goals.

 

About the Strong Interest Inventory: Differences Between Adjacent Types

As you look at the hexagon for the Strong, you'll notice that some letters are closer than others. This reflects Holland's theory that some occupations are more similar than others. So Realistic and Conventional jobs are more similar than Realistic and Social, for example. But what are the differences between those scales that are closest to each other on the hexagon?

This issue we'll look at two sets of adjacent occupations to see what's different.

Let's take Enterprising and Conventional jobs. Generally, Enterprising jobs require greater use of data, talking, hearing, dealing with people, and abstract and creative activities versus routine, concrete activities. Similarly, Conventional jobs rate higher in finger dexterity, repetitive or continuous processes, and seeing. Finally, they rate higher in activities involving set limits, tolerances, or standards, as well as scientific and technical activities versus business contact.

Conventional jobs score higher than Realistic jobs on clerical aptitude, dealing with people, repetitive or continuous activities, and communication of data versus activities with things.

If we compare Realistic to Conventional jobs, the former has higher ratings for specific vocational training, spatial perception, strength, and measurable or verifiable criteria.

As you can imagine, many jobs combine aspects from several scales, so they are a blend of types. Of course, none of the above means that only Conventional jobs require seeing or Enterprising jobs require talking. It merely shows some of the criteria that separate jobs into the different categories. Once again, the most important aspect is matching your interests and abilities to your job.

 

The FIRO-B: Team Transitions I

This time we'll start a new section about how team members might respond to transitions in the team roles, composition, or tasks.

The first scenario occurs when a project ends that a team has been working on. For those individuals with low scores on Wanted or Expressed Affection, they might feel pressure to express emotions and feelings, particularly if other group members have high scores on these scales. One method to avoid this discomfort is to speak with other team members individually, as opposed to doing the same in a group forum. For those who have high scores on Expressed Control, there may be a tendency to want to press forward with the same speed and intensity as before. Instead, the group might need to slow down to help process the emotional issues caused by the end of the project.

A much different scenario can develop when a new team leader enters the group. Those people with low scores on Expressed or Wanted Inclusion might resist accepting a new leader. It could help if these people spent extra time and effort to meet and get to know the new leader. People with low scores on Wanted Control can likewise have trouble adapting to the new leader's style of doing business. In such cases, it could be beneficial to have a private meeting with the new leader to discuss expectations and accountability. Finally, those with high scores on Wanted Control might defer to the new leader too quickly. Instead these people might challenge the new leader where appropriate, especially regarding changing the current system. However, they need to be careful about pressuring the new leader to be like the old one.