Management bias against women is actually bias against Fs?

[COLORATURA]

There are SO many things to say about what has already been said. To keep from having to quote everyone & make a huge long explanation, I am going to try to keep my reply short & as to the point as possible.

Was the MBTI not made to help people to understand themselves & choose a career path? Do we not all go to work to make money (which in turns allows us to eat, have shelter, clothing or whatever we choose to pay for...)? Check out the list of "preferred" careers for personality types. I believe these preferences are caused by ones' own nature (ie personality preference). So, preferences cause career preference. A person preferring "F" most likely will not want to fire people & etc. If they do, it will be b/c of their ability to see beyond their own values. A "T" person will probably naturally be better at firing, and alot of other managerial type tasks. I agree, however, that the qualities of the feeling function might be an asset to a company, that some may overlook.

The bottom line is, we all have to work. Since there are people out there whom want to sue others and etc, we have corporations (let's face it...who wants to hand out their SSN these days??). These entities are created to MAKE MONEY to pay the people whom work within the system. Everyone has their own talents, and when they are balanced, can use all preferences. If we viewed the company as a whole & not as the individuals, we would realize what is good for the company is good for the people whom work there. The more money it has, the more it has to pay it's employees.

This doesn't mean that everyone will still want to manage others. The ones whom do, will most likely work really hard towards that. That, or they will be competitive, and maybe possibly stab others in the back. Will they get there? I guess it depends on their tenacity & talent (which may not depend on their personality). That, or other factors (which could in some cases be bigotry). Yes, there are some people running companies out there whom are bigoted. To say that all are b/c of the percentage of some research & your own personal experiences, is not strong enough proof.

In some ways, personality typing causes bigotry. I see this all the time on this website. Just b/c someone is an "F" doesn't mean they aren't going to possess those characteristics that we view as "cut throat." I know many "F" preferring people who are willing to manipulate whomever/whatever to get what they want. I know many "T" preferring people who would NEVER manipulate b/c it goes against their standards of operation & they don't see "the point." It really all depends on a persons' mental health & balance. Unfortunately, there are alot of un-balanced people out there.

Last point. Every human being on earth is capable of bigotry. We all experience life & have problems. People learn things from experience. It's our nature. If a person is tortured by someone w/ black hair, they may have flashbacks when they see black hair. It is part of nature, and while we can work on ourselves, we will always be ignorant to many things.

(Did I mention I am an INTP drudgingly working in the accounting/bookkeeping/payroll/tax arena for almost 10 years?? Fucking sucks.)

 

[WALMART]

Entertain this: is/ought fallacy.

Thrilling read. Let me look at your original statement again: "There is nothing in the data I have presented which implies that any of this is "natural" or based on merit."


Yes, I stated what is. There is currently favoritism towards thinking types over feeling types for managerial positions. We are talking about managing capital. Who of the two dichotomies does it seem a natural inclination would favor towards?


I understand, you do not want this to be. This is the way it ought not to be. I also don't want racism, or another war - still, both subjects irritate the fuck out of me because it is apparent that is not the current natural order of things. Only seeing what ought to be is my main gripe against both feelers and intuits.

So you share the common prejudice against feelers. What does this purport to prove?

You suspect. Where is the evidence?

Prove it.

I'm not sure what to tell you, Salomé. Does an army drill instructor put on his FP face when drilling his unit? Does a manager start asking who wants to do what when shit hits the fan? Is a business ran proper when you start considering the other Mexican food restaurant across the street? Almost every path leading to a 'successful' conclusion can be likened to Te, I really don't know what else to say.


I suspect a large part of this can be chalked up to bias against capitalistic tendency. If only we were afforded the luxuries of 20th century eastern Europeans.

 

[Jonny]

Ok, so I took a bit of time to get the data into a usable format for analysis.

Here is a breakdown of the core data as presented in the report, sans some breakdowns they give on the second page of each grouping:

I also include an aggregate SSR for Thinking v. Feeling based upon the total group-population expected totals for Thinking types; the SSR for Feeling types naturally follows.


Here are the implicit group-population expected distributions based upon the self-selection ratios (SSRs) as given.

For both the above I assume that they use the same calculation method as referenced in Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment:

The SSR, also referred to as the Index of Attraction, is calculated by dividing the percentage of a type in the sample of interest by the percentage of that type in the base population to obtain a ratio...

In the second chart I note where their presented data likely has some typo or error, and also reflect these findings in the first chart.


I have some developing thoughts about what we can and can't infer from this data as presented, and I might or might not come back and discuss those (this depends upon my workload in the next few days / weeks). Some questions off the top of my head:

• We are all aware that not all people of a particular type test alike in all areas. To what extent is there homogeneity among a particular type group who happen to be in management? Perhaps the ENFJs who happen to be managers are unlike ENFJs who aren't managers in some way; perhaps those same ENFJ managers have things in common with all other types who are managers. What underlying factors are contributing to these trends?
• How consistent are these distributions as one travels up the hierarchy? This could help explain some of the mechanisms whereby the selection takes place. If there were a powerful selection bias in the promotion process, each level might represent an additional filter, thus skewing the population further and further as one moves up the ladder. Also, not all managerial roles are the same: CEO =/= middle manager.
• To what extent are those who were surveyed familiar with the MBTI? If they have no familiarity with it outside of the workplace, it is quite possible that they are typing their "work selves" rather than who they actually are. The demands of the job shape the person who occupies it.
• So many more... but I need sleep. Excellent thread. Fun stuff...

 

[FDG]

[*]To what extent are those who were surveyed familiar with the MBTI? If they have no familiarity with it outside of the workplace, it is quite possible that they are typing their "work selves" rather than who they actually are. The demands of the job shape the person who occupies it.

That's the big problem, in my opinion.

 

[Coriolis]

I'm sorry, I must have missed that research, perhaps you can point it out to me? If you can't, guess what? It's bigotry.

I am surprised you missed it, given your interest in career-related topics. MBTI is used extensively in the the workplace and academia, which has generated lots of studies correlating type with performance in various academic disciplines and job settings. For example, see the one I ran across most recently:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/longmbti.pdf

Not a fair comparison. Sports/entertainment is meritocratic. Senior management often is not. If you doubt this, you only have to look at the huge golden handshakes with which they are rewarded for failure.
I think you could argue that TJs are better at negotiating on their own behalf than other types, but that doesnt make them better managers, it just makes them selfish assholes. Should we reward people for being selfish assholes? I don't see why we should.

It is a fair comparison. Sports and especially entertainment is no more meritocratic than management. In fact, much of it is simply a popularity contest. Few if any workplaces choose their managers this way. I would say E__Js are best at negotiating on their own behalf, especially when it comes to personal compensation. Moreover, any type can act like an asshole.

You are wrong. I don't have to show T is no more effective (although I'm sure this is possible), you have to show that it IS more effective, to prove that no discrimination exists. I'm surprised I have to tell you this.

You are the one asserting discrimination, so this gives you the burden of proof. I am surprised I have to tell you this. If you do have proof, or even just evidence, bring it on.

 

[entropie]

I am surprised you missed it, given your interest in career-related topics. MBTI is used extensively in the the workplace and academia, which has generated lots of studies correlating type with performance in various academic disciplines and job settings. For example, see the one I ran across most recently:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/longmbti.pdf

Ya thats really bigotry. Dunno what it is with americans and their obsession for statistics...

It is a fair comparison. Sports and especially entertainment is no more meritocratic than management. In fact, much of it is simply a popularity contest. Few if any workplaces choose their managers this way. I would say E__Js are best at negotiating on their own behalf, especially when it comes to personal compensation. Moreover, any type can act like an asshole.

It's a sucky comparison. Sportlers get their popularity thru performance, managers dont.

 

[highlander]

[*]How consistent are these distributions as one travels up the hierarchy? This could help explain some of the mechanisms whereby the selection takes place. If there were a powerful selection bias in the promotion process, each level might represent an additional filter, thus skewing the population further and further as one moves up the ladder. Also, not all managerial roles are the same: CEO =/= middle manager.

Very interesting post.

The data I have seen shows the distribution consistently moving towards TJ as you progress up the chain. I recall introverts in general were over-represented in terms of percentage of high level executives as compared to the number of them in the entry level work force and NTJs in particular are highly overrepresented when compares to their percentages in the entry level work force. The most senior level execs are 90% TJ. There are a lot of ESTJs in the general population and also a fair number of ISTJs and not so many ENTJ and INTJs.

 

[Coriolis]

It's a sucky comparison. Sportlers get their popularity thru performance, managers dont.

Some of it, but not all. Just witness how much money many continue to bring in long after they retire from active play due to age/injury. This is even more obvious with (non-athletic) entertainers. Many have little real talent/skill by any objective criteria, and benefit from slick marketing and promotion (by more TJ managers intent on making money).

 

[Salomé]

The 13 years were across two different companies. She followed me.

Creepy.

Surely you jest.

Most of the time. Other than when I'm being serious.

Let's look at the two options you laid out.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post a bunch of self-evident stuff. Do you really need to define discrimination? I think most of us know what it is. I'm guessing it's because you don't actually have an argument.

Let's compare an ISFP to an ESTJ. Which one would on average be more motivated to progress in management? Most would say the ESTJ would be more likely to want to do that. On average, they are more likely to want to be running things. The ISFP on average would rather not be running things. Odds are they would more likely be in a service oriented job rather than directing people and managing to deadlines. That's not discrimination. It's not necessarily superior ability. It's personal preference.

Lol. Now you're just restating your own prejudices as facts. No wonder everything is so fucked if this is how TJs reason...

Whatever their "true" underlying type is, managers will represent themselves as thinking type because that's the "role" they are playing for the vast majority of their time. It's not so easy to "trust" these self-reporting statistics. I would however trust a similar study which was either done during college (and showed that people who later became managers are majorly prediagnosed as T), or after some years of retirement. I do agree though that corporate culture is too cut-troath and tends to encourage psychopathy rather than performance.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned already. I think it's very likely that people play up to the stereotype. Then again, if there wasn't a stereotype, they wouldn't feel the need to...so we're back at square one.

Yes, I stated what is. There is currently favoritism towards thinking types over feeling types for managerial positions. We are talking about managing capital.

No, we're not. We're not talking about hedge fund managers. We're talking about managing people and organisations.

I understand, you do not want this to be. This is the way it ought not to be. I also don't want racism, or another war - still, both subjects irritate the fuck out of me because it is apparent that is not the current natural order of things. Only seeing what ought to be is my main gripe against both feelers and intuits.

And being so facile as to state that "it is what it is" is my main gripe about stupid people. What's your point?

I really don't know what else to say.

So it would seem. But thanks for playing.

I am surprised you missed it, given your interest in career-related topics. MBTI is used extensively in the the workplace and academia, which has generated lots of studies correlating type with performance in various academic disciplines and job settings. For example, see the one I ran across most recently:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/longmbti.pdf

That's about Engineering. Not Management. Which is, I think you'll agree, a broader church.

You are the one asserting discrimination, so this gives you the burden of proof.

See the OP.
I suppose you would have been a slave owner in colonial times? I can see you now. "These people are only good for picking cotton. You can't give them an education. They'd only waste it."

 

[highlander]

Creepy.

Yes, it's creepy when someone leaves a company and some of the people who worked that person leave and join that person at the new company. That doesn't happen all the time.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to post a bunch of self-evident stuff. Do you really need to define discrimination? I think most of us know what it is. I'm guessing it's because you don't actually have an argument.

You laid out two options:

For there to be twice as many Ts in management as one would expect by chance, there is a bias towards Ts. Either this bias is a result of the innate superior ability of Ts (which appears to be your argument) or else it's discrimination. There are no other options.

Lol. Now you're just restating your own prejudices as facts. No wonder everything is so fucked if this is how TJs reason...

I explained that your two options were incorrect and thus your statement was incorrect. I explained that there were other options. You appear to agree with my statements given the fact that these things are "self-evident". You have done nothing to counter my argument. I assume that's because you have no way to refute what I said and refuse to admit that your statement is wrong.

 

[Honor]

This book is the best thing I've read on the topic. It is more about leadership than management per se.

There are a few things I've been able to discern from the things I've read:
- [MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION], as you stated, TJ is dominant in management. Also, the higher you go, the more TJ it is (those ENTPs you mention start to disappear). There is also a predominance of STJs in manager positions overall. However, as you go higher up the ladder, NTJs are represented in disproportionate numbers relative to their frequency in the population.
- Reality is defined by the dominant types in leadership and it is self perpetuating. For example, if you work in a large government organization, it wouldn't be surprising that management is overwhelmingly filled with STJ types and if you're not an STJ and want to advance - well then good luck.
- It’s all about culture, what is valued in that culture, and what is the norm – the culture of the company, the department you’re in, the type of industry, the country you’re in, etc. Though it is not so prevalent in the US anymore, there is no question in my mind that there is a bias against women in management in certain cultures. I have seen this.
- People adjust their natural behavior to emulate the dominant types in leadership positions. You'll see Fs that try to act more like Ts or Ps that will try to act like Js. They do this to their detriment (from a type development standpoint anyway) while resenting the dominant type.

Also, in that book there is some interesting information on coworker feedback on leaders relative to type. For example, ENTJs are perceived by co-workers as less effective leaders than other types of TJs. Feeling types are rated higher by subordinates than thinking types. INFJs were the highest rated supervisors in one study. ENTPs and ESTPs fit the most effective leadership profile of any of the thinking types. Etc.

A lot of what I would have said in response to the initial post is contained in this post, but there are a few things I'd add.

1) There's a certain aspect of leadership, namely the ability to rapidly make a decision and stick to it, that TJs are better at than other types. So, in that sense, it's probably not a bad thing that there's a plethora of TJs in those rapid-fire decision-making positions. Now, unfortunately (at least on some level) there are a lot of other roles that are often wrapped up into the managerial position, including some HR-type responsibilities, that FJs would probably be better suited to.
2) The problem with these kinds of "studies" is that they're extremely unreliable. Tests are not reliable indicators of type, so whatever data they got on their study group's types may not be highly accurate. That's huge because it could mean that all of their "statistics" on the presence or absence of certain types in managerial positions could be off.

 

[Coriolis]

That's about Engineering. Not Management. Which is, I think you'll agree, a broader church.

Doesn't matter. I posted this link in response to your denial of:

Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts at certain activities/tasks, and vice versa. That's not bigotry, just diversity.

Are you now limiting your objection to management activities only? I worked one summer at a business school library and ran across similar data for management tasks, but currently have data for science and engineering skills more readily available. The underlying point is the same, however: on average, all types are not equally competent at all activities, though individuals of any type certainly can be. This is one aspect of discrimination you seem to be missing, namely that individuals should not be judged by statistics, however conclusive the statistics may be at establishing a trend.

See the OP.
I suppose you would have been a slave owner in colonial times? I can see you now. "These people are only good for picking cotton. You can't give them an education. They'd only waste it."

Some people ARE only good for picking cotton, but I would be an equal opportunity overseer; there are plenty of dumb whites who would also fit the bill.

 

[Salomé]

You have done nothing to counter my argument.

What is your argument, exactly? I see nothing worth contending.

Are you now limiting your objection to management activities only?

Check thread title. The scope is unchanged.

Some people ARE only good for picking cotton, but I would be an equal opportunity overseer; there are plenty of dumb whites who would also fit the bill.

Wow. Thanks for clarifying your position. It's clear you take pride in your chauvinism. Nothing more to say.

The thread is unravelling much as I hoped it might...

 

[WALMART]

Started a new job wednesday. Manager wears a TJ face, quite efficient. Seems exfp otherwise.


Lead supervisor seems inherently istj. Doesn't seem well liked, but knows what needs to be done.

 

[Coriolis]

Check thread title. The scope is unchanged.

Check the posts. Not so at all. In any case, the accuracy of your comments has nothing to do with whether members are posting off topic. Cute attempt to deflect attention, though.

 

[Orangey]

Fs aren't as talented or competent as Ts at certain activities/tasks, and vice versa. That's not bigotry, just diversity. Expecting everyone to demonstrate the same range of talents, skills, and interests denies individuality, and even reality.

And which activities/tasks are those? Please make an exhaustive list for each of the functions. I'd really like to know.

 

[Coriolis]

And which activities/tasks are those? Please make an exhaustive list for each of the functions. I'd really like to know.

That is a rather unrealistic request. In any case, a list by type or perhaps temperament might be more useful. Any book on type and career is a start, though they tend to paint the differences with a very broad brush, and provide few if any data. For an example of a more thorough treatment, you can see the paper I linked several posts back about engineering. I have read similar for computer programming, business management, military leadership, and teaching. Teaching is especially interesting since those studies go into the (mis)match in type between teacher and learner, and discuss learning styles as well.

The important take-away is that any INDIVIDUAL can excel at any field if they have the determination and motivation. This is in part by learning to use non-preferred functions, and to develop skills uncommon (but not impossible) for their type. It is also in part by using their stronger suits to approach the task in different ways. These will often be the weak spots for the more customary holders of a given job. So, while generalizations are supportable, they don't determine outcomes for individuals.

Moreover, a "T-bias" in hiring is justified if it reflects a bias toward T-typical skills related to the job, and not simply individuals with T in their type. (I wonder if there is an F-bias in counselors, or a SP-bias in fitness instructors, or if it is just that those occupations tend to be preferred by those types . . . perhaps because they are naturally good at it?? Heaven forbid.)

 

[Salomé]

Once again, you are missing the point, Coriolis. Whether deliberately or not, it's hard to say.

I am not talking about (and the scope of the report does not cover) specific fields. Of course, interest and aptitude are related. When we talk about management, we are talking about a vertical dimension (that covers every field) so your narrow focus on the horizontal is unhelpful and irrelevant. Unless you are proposing that Fs are not interested in excelling in their chosen field (whatever that might be), which is utter nonsense.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

When I suggest women are discriminated against, you say they aren't. When I suggest they're not, you say they are.
I think you just like to be contrary.

I was having a similar thought to that reading this thread.

I swear to the heavens above that you are just arguing for the position you were arguing against me about in my gender and sexuality blog a couple a months ago.

I just don't understand.

 

[Coriolis]

I am not talking about (and the scope of the report does not cover) specific fields. Of course, interest and aptitude are related. When we talk about management, we are talking about a vertical dimension (that covers every field) so your narrow focus on the horizontal is unhelpful and irrelevant. Unless you are proposing that Fs are not interested in excelling in their chosen field (whatever that might be), which is utter nonsense.

Are you equating excelling in one's field with entering management? To what degree are the skills required to be an effective manager distinct for each field vs. transferrable from one field to another? (The military, for instance, is based on the latter assumption.)