REFLECTION PAPER ASSIGNMENT (QEP My Learning Style)
T Y P E F A C E
Volume 14, No. 1 16 Spring 2003
Rather than write an article for you to choose just to read (and I would be delighted to hear from more of you about articles you would like to contribute to this section) this time I am giving you something for you to work on too! So get your pencil out and see what you come up with.
Thinking Judgers are frequently portrayed as ruthless, goal-focused, unfeeling automatons in the workplace and, unsurprisingly, they are often dismayed at being perceived in this way. Such misconceptions about type at work can arise from rushed MBTI®
workshops run in organisations, sometimes covered in as little as just over an hour, and crammed in amongst other activities. We have all come across these scenarios - a memo flies around the office with a note saying: "Fill this in and send it back. It is for the greater good of us all". The question booklet and answer sheet are enclosed. Like a lamb to the slaughter the employee completes the questions and dutifully returns the package to Human Resources. There is no discussion about how to approach the questions and no one-to-one feedback session although there might be a note saying "We plan to give people feedback in the team environment. If anyone would like individual feedback please contact HR". Unless our employee has knowledge about MBTI® already, or has received a full explanation of the background, process and outcomes of MBTI®, then that person has no idea of
the importance and value of the one-to- one session they are missing. Our employee decides to wait for the team feedback session. He/she is very busy and could do without another meeting to add to the schedule.
On the day, just one person happens to be ISTJ - isolated and alone in that top left hand square on the MBTI® type chart – our dutiful employee who is also the team’s manager. Hopefully, the trained practitioner (let’s not get bogged down with debating that right now, shall we?) is managing the situation to ensure all types are seen as positive. There is some dialogue between this ISTJ, the practitioner and the rest of the team about what it is like to be an ISTJ. If there is sufficient time available they may even do some exercises which help to demonstrate all the preferences. Everyone is given their copy of the small Report Booklet published by OPP1. And then it happens - someone reads "Character-istics frequently associated with each Type" on Page 8 of the booklet. They read the ISTJ description, as they have just been discussing it as a group and, in spite of all they have been told, they take what they have read and form their own opinion about this person. We all do it, every day, all the time and in this case it is particularly damaging.
Of course, this could happen in any group situation where there is only one person of a particular Type. Why am I so bothered about ISTJs? If you have a
copy of the Report Booklet then take a look at the chart for yourself (Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions we are unable to print a copy of the chart here although you can obtain the booklet from OPP.) Failing that, take a minute to read the following two sentences which are the first two lines of the description of ISTJ:
"Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter- of-fact, logical, realistic and dependable."
I haven’t included the full description here (copyright issues again!) but it continues in a similar vein. However, the descriptions of the other seven Thinking types are different to this. You will find that ISTPs have "flashes of original humour"; ESTPs "enjoy whatever comes along"; ESTJs "like to organise and run activities"; INTPs "enjoy theoretical …"; ENTPs "may argue for fun"; ENTJs "enjoy adding to their fund of knowledge…" INTJs do something in "fields that appeal to them". For ISTJs there are no emotional words at all. The nearest I could come up with was "dependable". Admittedly this booklet is just one of a number of tools we can use when working with Type, but I hope you will see my point.
Back with our team, people are building their perception that ISTJs are hard, unemotional people who value getting the job done well and not much else. The same characteristics are attributed
THE ISTJ AS A CARING MANAGER – WORDS OR DEEDS?
JENNIFER GINGER (ENFP) Interest Area Co-ordinator, Careers & Occupations
Jennifer Ginger has spent her working life both overseas and in the UK in marketing and consultancy. More recently she has specialised in coaching virtual teams in multinational companies and working with individuals of a variety of nationalities on one-to-one personal development programmes. (EMail: Jadcginger @aol.com).
Volume 14, No. 1 16 Spring 2003
Volume 14, No. 1 17 Spring 2003
T Y P E F A C E
Volume 14, No. 1 17 Spring 2003
to ESTJs too. What is the outcome of this? One ISTJ said to me "Perhaps it is because I am perceived as having no feelings, people think it is OK to make negative comments about my type". ESTJs have had similar experiences, although they report feeling better equipped to "fight words with words" on the spot. ISTJs say they "absorb what is said, mull it over and then feel affronted". As Linda Kirby states on Page 18 of Developing Leaders (edited by Fitzgerald and Kirby)2: "Thinking and Judging Types are in the majority in management across a variety of cultures and types of organizations." That means there could be lot of managers out there who are misunderstood.
Over the phone I asked one ISTJ, a company director, whether he would like to change anything in the description of his Type referred to earlier. (Incidentally, he said that he is very proud to be an ISTJ but had never taken part in a team type exercise. He had looked at his type in one-to-one sessions only and used that knowledge for his own benefit rather than openly in the workplace.) After some consideration he decided that most of the description was accurate but the word that was missing was "Caring". This was defined in the sense of "caring about the things and people that matter to you", rather than the "nurturing" definition of the word. And he was talking about caring at work, not just with friends and family. If you add this to the ISTJ description given you create a very different picture - "Serious, quiet, caring …"
He also suggested that the description should include that "we are not bad listeners". I asked if that was the same as "we are good listeners." "Of course!" was the reply.
Our conversation made me think not only about the language used to describe Type characteristics but also how the language different types use influences the way they are perceived.
Here’s where you will need that pencil … I asked two people (X and Y) six questions about work and the responses are given below.
Q1. What are the things that you do in your job that you enjoy?
X: Being able to look at the entire spectrum of the company’s business and influence and control them. Y: Meeting difficult targets. Successfully managing issues and people. It gives me a sense of satisfaction when I achieve something that is difficult.
Q2. What are the things that you do in your job that you don’t enjoy?
X: The requirement to get involved in some areas of the business that are not particularly challenging but necessary in order to ensure we are running the company well. They are boring and mundane. Y: Drudgery – lots of paperwork for something that is really straightforward, that is, it is not a big decision but you have to follow the routine. Also, when things pile up because other people throw things into the pot that are unexpected – I know I can handle them and I know I can react but it is annoying when people move the goalposts. And pointless meetings.
Q3. What are the things in your work that you find easy?
X: Organisation and planning. It’s the way I think. Y: Seeing a clear path to a solution.
People find that I challenge them to check the detail because I want to make sure that what we come up with is rooted in the right quality of work.
Q4. What are the things in your work that you find difficult?
X: Dealing with people can be frustrating, perhaps not difficult, but in general it is people that create difficulties that need to be dealt with – it is frustration borne out of a (small) degree of intolerance. Y: Sometimes I find it difficult to form a strategic vision because the remit within which it needs to be done keeps changing, then lots of things happen and it gets overwhelmed. Also, when I have lots of things to do in a hurry and then people ask for more things.
Q5. What are the things in your work that you do well?
X: The easy stuff mentioned above and, ironically given my answer to 4, dealing with people, networking and getting people on board with ideas. How do you know? Feedback, requested or not. Y: I’m very fair. I deliver. I ruthlessly adhere to the strategy. How do you know? People tell me.
Q6. What are the things in your work that you don’t do well?
X: Delegating. How do you know? Because I know I end up with too much on my plate. Y: I have to work hard to communicate enough for some people, for example, having team meetings on a regular basis but I get someone else to put together the agenda so that it doesn’t clutter up my day. How do you know? Some people have told me. But not all, interestingly. Some of my staff are happy having more meetings and others are nonplussed. But I try to make work fun and I want my team to be happy. I am very fair and consistent, so I’m told!
“Add the words ‘caring’ and ‘good listeners’ in type
description and the result is a very different ISTJ,”
Volume 14, No. 1 18 Spring 2003
T Y P E F A C E
The two people interviewed are both senior managers and have ISTJ preferences. Their replies are succinct, but they responded to my request at very short notice and they both delivered them on time. What I find fascinating about their responses are the following:
1 Their responses to each question are different even though they are the same type. (O.K. that’s no big surprise and, yes, this fits with type theory, proving that people of the same type are not all identical.)
2 They use different language to describe feelings about work that many of us can relate to – even though we are not all the same type. Test for yourself: Read the questions and the responses given and highlight the ones that you would say
apply to you in your workplace too – even if you wouldn’t use the same words to describe them. How many of their answers do you agree with? (If you are not working it is still possible to do – some questions may not apply – but consider them in relation to your day-to-day life.)
3 Not every response these two managers give is one that fits neatly within the ISTJ type description as given in the Report Booklet.
4 They include description of emotional states – feeling overwhelmed, frustrated, bored.
Put these four points together. Add the suggestions that the words "caring" and "good listeners" be included in the Type description and the result is quite a different ISTJ to the ones described in the Report Booklet chart. Imagine that
being read in the team scenario depicted earlier!
What do you think? In your experience are these valid observations or purely an ENFP’s view? Email your comments to me at Jadcginger@aol.com. In the next issue, if there is space, I shall summarise our findings.
References:-
1 Briggs KC, Myers IB. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® European English Edition - Report Booklet. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press, 1998.
2 Kirby L, Fitzgerald C (Eds). Developing Leaders. Davies-Black Publishing. 1997.
I hope you will agree that this issue is a bumper one again with lots of interesting contributions from our members. However, I must emphasise that this can only be sustained if members get in
touch with the Interest Area Co- ordinators who are leading on your particular areas of interest. We need other members to discuss how they are using type and are anxious to hear what you might like to share with us. So please get in touch with your IAC without any commitment (see list in September TypeFace). Alternatively, give me a ring or send an email to discuss possibilities. We cannot expect the IACs to do all the writing themselves - indeed, they will eventually run out of ideas so we need your contributions as well.
Our President, David Stilwell, reports on the latest issues that have been discussed recently by your Board of Trustees to keep you in touch with what is going on. He highlights, in particular, the Annual Conference coming up shortly (more
details on page 4). It should be an excellent opportunity to learn more about Type and also to network - do contact Keron to find out details of how to book your place.
We are delighted to welcome yet another overseas contributor, Linda Berens, the world expert on tempera- ment, who writes the first in a series of two articles on the Five Lenses of Type (the second will appear in the June issue). Two articles then follow by BAPT members
describing other instruments used in the area of personality assessment. John Cooper writes about FIRO Element ‘B’ and Catherine Stothart about the Hogan Personality Inventory. It is interesting to learn more about the different approaches to personality being used.
Jennifer Ginger, IAC (Careers & Occupations), then features an article on The ISTJ as a Caring Manager: Words or Deeds? in which she suggests that the current descriptions of this Type do not do the individuals justice. Marion Syms, IAC (Education), follows with an article describing the establishment of a local chapter in the South of England and I can vouch from personal experience that the BAPT Southern Chapter, which she and Carole Wynn run, is an excellent example of continuing education.
Our ‘expert panel’ then addresses the second question raised under the Ask BAPT! column and discuss the issue of type development and whether type changes over one’s lifetime. They are keen to have further questions to tackle so please don’t be shy and send them in to me and I’ll pass them on to feature in later issues.
Nick Evans then reports on the most generous donation we have received from the Center for Application of Psychological Type (CAPT) of an embryo library so BAPT can embark on providing further benefits to its members. We now need to find a Librarian from amongst you to act as custodian of this marvellous gift.
Nancy’s book review comes next and this time she has produced a comprehensive description and well-argued critique of Pat Wyman’s new book Three Keys to Self- Understanding, another publication kindly donated to BAPT by CAPT. Peter Malone then reviews the new, highly acclaimed film The Magdalene Sisters, where he relates Type to the organizational culture within the Catholic Church in Ireland during the 1960s.
Although we have passed Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day we shall shortly be approaching Easter, a time when many of us give and receive flowers. Do you think Type influences your choice or preference in flowers? Nancy takes a look at what types of flowers might suit you best.
We are sadly still short of contributions to the Guess the Type of the Politician/
L i n k i n g t h e t y p e c o m m u n i t y
T H E • B A P T • Q U A R T E R L Y • R E V I E W
IN THIS ISSUE
T Y P E F A C E
Volume 14, No. 1 Spring 2003
BAPT Southern Chapter Meeting
continued on page 2 ....