I get this. Though of course if everyone thought this way, nothing would ever change.And I think a lot of it has to do with my looking at those who ARE in it, and the culture behind it, and I want little to do with it - with most of the personalities in it. I'd have to morph myself quite a lot, I think. Or, even if I didn't, I'd still be stuck being the odd man out, disagreeing with the direction/culture the bulk of the time, and/or the spoken and unspoken expectations placed upon me.
You say that like it's inevitable and no one's fault. That's a cop out. Why are corporations structured in this way? Because of greedy individuals. Institutions aren't accountable, people are.There will always be greed but it's more than that. It's the actual structure of the corporation and its status as a legal person. People run the things but they are slaves to profits and investor's expectations. It's the system they are a part of and investors want short term results.
You misunderstand. I didn't say INTPs can't manage. I said I see no reason why an ESFJ couldn't do it at least as well.The guy in the office next to mine is an INTP and very successful. He's highly entrepreneurial, diplomatic, an excellent negotiator and he cares about people. There is another INTP that I helped to groom over a period of 13 years from the time she graduated from college. She is an exceptional performer, mentor and project leader. She is one of the strongest performers I have worked with in my career. She sits around the corner from me. Both have progressed quite well up the management chain. Would either end up running the company? No. It wouldn't be the best use of their talents and they wouldn't like it but they do just fine.
Also, groomed for 13 yrs? THIRTEEN? Wtf? Either she's not very bright /independent or you are over-estimating your importance in her life. Given what I know of you, I suspect the latter.
You didn't tell me anything I couldn't have derived from the title...it's advocating the use of MBTI in leadership development.
You're wrong when you say it's about talent and competence. It absolutely isn't. See how that works? Not a very persuasive argument.You are wrong when you say it is not about talent and competence. It absolutely is.
By saying that, you are saying Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts.
Is that really what you want to say? Because that just makes you a bigot. And bigots don't convince anyone of anything other than their bigotry.
One word. Dilbert.It is about results. I've been around long enough to see that people who get promoted are ones their superiors think will deliver results at the level to which they are promoted at.
Are you trying to prove my point or argue against it? I can't tell.Unethical behavior? Failure to appreciate diversity? Generally bad for business. Bad for the leaders of those businesses because it takes money out of their pockets. Ethical lapses can destroy companies and careers. Some go to jail. Look at what happened at Enron and Arthur Andersen.
Lol. No.Over time, whatever contributes more to corporate profits is what will influence behaviors. It was disfunctional for women and minorities to be discriminated against in the workplace. Companies were limiting their talent pool. Bad for business. So it changed.
I guess you missed the revolution. Your faith in capitalism is....something.
I also think the effects are exaggerated by cultural mores that brutalise males (compared with females) and make them even more dysfunctional as a result.
This is a pretty broad sweep of careers/industries. I don't buy that TJs are the only people who want to get ahead in their chosen occupation.A broader question is whether every type needs to be proportionally represented in every career or occupation. As others have observed, not everyone (or every type) is interested in every job or career path.No, it's not ok. It's not ok because the remuneration of management is generally far in excess of their contribution and ability as well as that of their subordinates.Is it not OK for management to be disproportionately TJ, while art might be, say, disproportionately SP?
I'd say it was much more STJ. It's about targets, budgets, bottom lines and reporting cycles. It's about giving "the City" what it expects to see so as not to make waves in the market. It's a really fucked system. Built entirely on greed and speculation and rumour. No one understands real value anymore.The tendency at least for NTJs is long range planning. Unfortunately, many organizations do not support this, or say they do but just undercut such plans in favor of short-term gains. This seems more SP to me, but I am sure that is an oversimplification and may not even be accurate.
Because balance is a good thing, and we already have way too many Ts in power?And why shouldn't F's have to act like T's sometimes?Because they recognise that management is about People, and Ts lose sight of that sometimes?No one has any compunction about telling T's we have to act more like Fs to get ahead. Leadership and management seminars are full of this kind of advice.
The best manager I've ever had was INTP, but he really wasn't interested in managing people ( which was a big part of his appeal to a fellow INTP) and went back into a more challenging technical role. Most managers are nothing more than glorified paper-pushers; that's not going to satisfy an enquiring mind for long. The exceptional ones, are those who excel at understanding people and building productive teams and inspiring those teams with a shared vision of excellence. Those are F-y traits. You can't fake interest in people. I'd say all the managers at my last place of work were Ts (ESTP was considered the ideal). And they were shit. People saw through them. They couldn't get buy in from anyone because it was obvious that all they cared about was paying lip-service to company ideals, while stabbing people in the back to advance their own careers. It was a really shitty place to work. All the talent left. I don't give that company very long.Interestingly the worst supervisor I have had in recent years was also the only F, an ENFJ.
We all have anecdotes, but I don't think there can be any foundation to justify Fs being passed over for management in favour of Ts on such a scale. It's discrimination, pure and simple.
If it's unsurprising that Ts prefer to be managed by Ts, perhaps it's equally unsurprising that Fs prefer to be managed by Fs. And since Fs are the majority, we ought to have many more Fs running the show.