Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Flak
I could see INTPs being comfortable testing as INTP if they are computer programmers. As ESFPs would be comfortable testing as ESFP in lingerie sales. But for most jobs, people consider the traits of the ISTJ to be desirable to employers, and therefore surely put that front on when testing, just as I've done (but for other tests than MBTI, and in interviews). That's why there are supposedly more ISTJs (and ESTJs: another lightning rod of a type, for leadership and people skills).
That probably has something to do with her being more NF and friendly than a good strategic thinker. If you're engaging in job placement based on type, it is generally inadvisable to let people self-assess.
I doubt she even had official capacities in mind when developing it, so the use of it there is further made to seem absurd.
|
Well, if it's being used for job placement, that's like using a lawn mower to snowblow your driveway. All the MBTI does is help people decide how clear they are about preferences. It doesn't measure skills or maturity or education. It's actually unethical to use it as a criteria for hiring--but beyond the ethics, it's stupid!!!
With motivation, people can succeed at jobs that at first glance seem unlikely for their type. In fact, since they may have a different perspective they may be the most valuable member of a team (unless the team shuts them down...but that's the subject o fother studies...)
It's a great tool, though for
career exploration and
management development. You can show people the careers that others of their type have found satisfaction in, help them understand what draws them to a specific career and whether they're willing to put up with being different from peers because of their motivations. Or, if they've got a clear idea of what the career involves (there are more people in dental school that don't get, for example, that it's all fine motor skills...).
And in management development...instead of accusing executives of faults, you can disarm them with typical developmental needs of people with their preferences and gain buy-in to skills development. But ANY type can be a great leader if they lead from their strengths. Research shows, though, that most F's opt out of corporate leadership because they can't get over the politics--why isn't everyone acting like they're on the same team? Why can't we just work together? How could anyone backstab?
