Someone recently commented to me that the MBTI was the “astrology of the consultant set.” The comment amused me, but I realized that (as a member of said “consultant set”) I was taking for granted the value I found in it, in large part because I spend my days surrounded by other people who also consider it valuable.
In parallel, I had a conversation with a co-worker about the requirements documentation for a client project we are currently working on. I keep bothering him to ask how something is supposed to work because, even though it is documented in the requirements, I have a huge amount of difficulty getting what I need out of them. To me, this is what the requirements documentation looks like:
The Matrix Code
Occasionally, if I work at it long/hard enough, and once I get familiar enough with the context, I can sometimes get to the point that it looks like this:
The Matrix Agents
But in more than a decade in this business, I have never once seen this:
The Woman in the Red Dress (The Matrix)
This is why I find value in the MBTI: after 14 years in this industry, surrounded by people for whom this type of information makes perfect sense, I struggled with the fact that I can’t be as productive as I need to be — and/or as my colleagues are — because, in this format, this information doesn’t make enough sense to me to be actionable.
Understanding the difference between N’s and S’s in terms of a basic orientation to the world has been enormously valuable. There is a demonstration conducted by Dr. Nick Grant (who is a therapist and consultant who specializes in applying the MBTI in practical settings, teaches at UT and uses the Myers-Briggs to help build high-performing teams for businesses) at the Wizard Academy that Roy likes to use as an illustration of how the two groups differ in their perceptions.
Dr. Grant divided the room by S and N types, and then showed them an object and asked them to describe it. The group of S-types came up with an organized list of it’s physical characteristics: size, shape, color, etc. The N-types described it in terms of it’s applicability, similarities and difference to other items, etc. (And they were not as organized about how they collected and presented the information, either.)
The S-types described the thing itself, in physical, tangible, material terms. The N-types described it as part of a larger context, and part of broader patterns and uses. Both groups were right. The question isn’t of right or wrong. The question is around orientation. Both sides could see and recognize the accuracy of what the other group was saying. The point is that each of them had their own starting point for how they perceived the object, and what information they considered relevant in describing it.
Of course, for people who don’t buy into the Jungian notion that there are four basic personality types (which is a concept that pre-dates Jung, just with different terminology), then of course the idea of the Myers-Briggs probably smacks of astrology. In which case, there’s not really anything I’m going to be able to say to change your mind. (Even assuming I were inclined to try.)
However, for those of us who find applicability in the data — both personally and professionally — there are some very valuable lessons to be take from it:
- The same information must be presented in multiple ways in order to be properly understood by your entire audience. This creates an enormous amount of work up-front, but it makes buy-in and implementation of a new initiative go far more smoothly. (This is especially true for consultants or anyone managing a change initiative.)
- Process by itself is not the solution. (Hardcore S-types might have a stroke at this notion, but just bare with me.) Process is about the deconstruction of an end-result to be able to consistently reproduce predictable results. The trouble is that people are not machines, so giving them steps to follow does not necessarily provide them with the necessary context to provide good results. This is especially true for knowledge workers: if your business depends on the creativity, adaptability and specialized expertise of individuals, then how different people process information is of vital importance to your success.
- Once you understand your default orientation, it is possible to identify ways to improve on your weaknesses and enhance your strengths. Like most things, though, understanding just how strong or how weak you are in any given area will determine how much work you need to apply, and just how much you can really expect to improve. (This idea is at the heart of strengths-based psychology.) For some functions and at certain times in your life, it might make sense to focus on getting better at something you normally struggle with (e.g. if you are starting a business, and have to wear all the hats yourself); at other points in your life, it makes more sense to focus on what you do best, and leave the things that weigh you down to someone else (e.g. once you are making enough money in your business to outsource the functions that distract from your core expertise).
At the end of the day, business is about individuals doing something — often in collaboration with others — to deliver results. We can build systems and tools and processes until we’re blue in the face, but they only work if they meet the needs of the people. All it takes is for a key person to have a bad day to change the entire course of a business — he could get mad and fire someone who goes off and gets a job with his competitor, he could snap at a reporter and bring down a torrent of bad press on his business, he could throw back a couple of drinks at lunch and wrap his car around a tree on the way back to the office. As much as we like to pretend that business is not about individuals, it really is.
The key is that a successful business is about a collection of individuals working together — and there is nothing about that process that isn’t made better by understanding how different people’s strengths, weaknesses, and perceptions come together. Quite often, the difference between a winning team and a losing team is just one critical member (and not even necessarily the official “leader”). A weak team makes bigger messes than it can clean up. A strong team is greater than the sum of its parts. And sometimes the only difference is the role the team members are trying to play. Assuming that any person should be able to fit any role is the fast track to mediocrity.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.