[MBTI General] NFJ's superior?

[proteanmix]

When I was in middle school and high school I always sought after positions of leadership. I was in student government from 7th -12th and when I got to college I was a dorm representative to the student congress. Now I'm an organizer of a film group.

I've always liked being in leadership positions, it comes naturally to me. Even when I'd be in small groups in school I somehow floated into that position. I like to refer to myself as a benevolent dictator. As Toonia said, when you're in a position of leadership you have to take the good along with the bad. When I was in college and would have that one slacker in every group, I'd be the one emailing or turning him/her into the professor for not doing what they were supposed to do. I've had to ask people to leave my film group because they were causing dissension and discord and other members were complaining.

I always try to remember what will be the most beneficial for the most amount of people. It works very well for me. When I have to make hard impartial decisions I do, but it's not what I prefer to do. I'd rather we all just chill and have a good time together. When you start ruining my group's atmosphere is when I start getting :steam: .

I also know from basic psychology and sociology that a happy worker is a good worker. If you keep people satisfied in an open environment and know how to delegate tasks (your weaker skills) to know one more knowledgeable then you're fine. Leadership is also knowing when to bow to someone more capable. Being able to communicate your vision to those in the group makes them take ownership of that vision and share it with you. They feel responsible and are more likely to help you with it. I think that takes Fe or something mimicking it.

As far as my abilities to lead are concerned, I go by how many people continue to show up and comment on my leadership skills. Right now everything seems to be fine. I'm not a corporate executive leading a Fortune 500 company, which probably would require more TJ. I'm like a local small business with happy employees and a loyal fanbase.

 

[cafe]

As far as leadership goes, I would much rather attach myself to a leader whose vision I share and try to work behind the scenes to smooth their path and accomplish goals. I usually identify much more with the sidekicks in stories than with leaders.

 

[heart]

When I was in college and would have that one slacker in every group, I'd be the one emailing or turning him/her into the professor for not doing what they were supposed to do. I've had to ask people to leave my film group because they were causing dissension and discord and other members were complaining.

I hate groups for the most part and I hate the pressure to conform to what the group wants (especially irrational queen beeism in groups where ego gratifcation is more important than actually getting what needs to be done, done) and I would also hate being the person who applies pressure to others to conform. I wonder how common that is for a NF.

 

[heart]

As far as leadership goes, I would much rather attach myself to a leader whose vision I share and try to work behind the scenes to smooth their path and accomplish goals. I usually identify much more with the sidekicks in stories than with leaders.

I'll obey a manager at a job to get paid, that's it. Otherwise I enjoy being on my own and doing my own thing. I always try to find jobs where I am mostly on my own and I am unhappy in jobs where I am not.

 

[proteanmix]

I hate groups for the most part and I hate the pressure to conform to what the group wants (especially irrational queen beeism in groups where ego gratifcation is more important than actually getting what needs to be done, done) and I would also hate being the person who applies pressure to others to conform. I wonder how common that is for a NF.

You'd be in a group where you the leader allowed another member to harass and belittle members, do nothing to stop it, and then hail the person doing the harassing a non-conformist? Good thing you're not a leader then.

Some group conformity is necessary. It's part of the social contract.

 

[cafe]

I'll obey a manager at a job to get paid, that's it. Otherwise I enjoy being on my own and doing my own thing. I always try to find jobs where I am mostly on my own and I am unhappy in jobs where I am not.

Oh, I'm not speaking of jobs. I've really not worked that much. I'm speaking of causes. LOL, work can take a flying leap.

 

[heart]

You'd be in a group where you the leader allowed another member to harass and belittle members, do nothing to stop it, and then hail the person doing the harassing a non-conformist? Good thing you're not a leader then.

You read that in what I said? Good grief....you do have a good imagination.

I said I avoid groups and I don't seek leadership and I try to avoid situations where others can "lead" me.

I would lead if I abosolutely had to and I would strive to be fair and protective of the weak over the strong but I would hate every minute of it.

Some group conformity is necessary. It's part of the social contract.

The social contract in our culture is that workers produce and obey the rules and make no trouble for the rulers at the top. A person's worth is based on what they are able produce or (how good they are at kissing butt) Everything else in our society is arranged around that in a heirarchy of people making sure that everyone keeps to their roles. In this world you Bee-have so you can have your place in the Bee-hive.

 

[proteanmix]

I hate groups for the most part and I hate the pressure to conform to what the group wants (especially irrational queen beeism in groups where ego gratifcation is more important than actually getting what needs to be done, done) and I would also hate being the person who applies pressure to others to conform. I wonder how common that is for a NF.

When I was in college and would have that one slacker in every group, I'd be the one emailing or turning him/her into the professor for not doing what they were supposed to do. I've had to ask people to leave my film group because they were causing dissension and discord and other members were complaining.

I suppose we both have vivid imaginations because you somehow pulled pressure to conform out of my post. The example you highlighted was in response to another post about an NFJ not being willing to be as harsh as a TJ would be in leadership. I used my little weak examples to show that I'm as rough and tough as any TJ out there.

The social contract in our culture is that workers produce and obey the rules and make no trouble for the rulers at the top. A person's worth is based on what they are able produce or (how good they are at kissing butt) Everything else in our society is arranged around that in a heirarchy of people making sure that everyone keeps to their roles. In this world you Bee-have so you can have your place in the Bee-hive.

Your example may be right, but I was thinking more about this concept when I said social contract. I'm against mindless conformity as much as you are.

The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. In laymen's terms this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order. Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is an heuristic examination of the human condition absent any social order, termed the "state of nature" or "natural state". In this state of being, an individual's action is bound only by his or her conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual's rational self-interest to voluntarily subrogate the freedom of action one has under the natural state (their so called "natural rights") in order to obtain the benefits provided by the formation of social structures.

Common to all of these theories is the notion of a sovereign will which all members of a society are bound by the social contract to respect. The various flavors of social contract theory that have developed are largely differentiated by their definition of the sovereign will, be it a King (monarchy), a Council (oligarchy) or The Majority (republic or democracy). Under a theory first articulated by Plato in his Socratic dialog Crito, members within a society implicitly agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society. Thus implicit in most forms of social contract is that freedom of movement is a fundamental or natural right which society may not legitimately require an individual to subrogate to the sovereign will.

 

[heart]

I suppose we both have vivid imaginations because you somehow pulled pressure to conform out of my post.

No I really didn't and I didn't direct my comment at you personally. I didn't say "oh you are a bad leader".

I merely stated that I tend to avoid groups and why. I really would hate to be the person who had to inform on people and in heirarchies of groups that is what is done to ensure that people conform.

Your example may be right, but I was thinking more about this concept when I said social contract. I'm against mindless conformity as much as you are.

The term social contract describes a broad class of philosophical theories whose subject is the implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. In laymen's terms this means that the people give up some rights to a government in order to receive social order. Social contract theory provides the rationale behind the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is an heuristic examination of the human condition absent any social order, termed the

I majored in Enlightenment history and yes it is all interesting as concepts go. I was giving my own take on what the modern social contract really is. Even social causes now are administered by groups funded and working within confines of what is deemed useful by the rulers. They provide a relief valve to prevent rebellion for change. They are allowed to provide just enough relief to prevent mass rebellion but not enough relief to increase too much power in the lower classes. Most of our labor as modern people goes to support a heirarchy that allows an elite to live in luxury and to play power games with each other, be that heirarchy call itself capitalism or communism (there is no true communism or free market in this world), it becomes the same with concentrated power and wealth at the top due to ever moving change to power concentrated in the hands of a few.

The social contract is a band aid and is not the final answer. Real change in society can't happen on a permanent basis until enough individuals come to the point to where they get in control of their own minds and actions and stop looking for a Big Daddy to lead them and stop abdicating their own personal responsibility to think things out for themselves. Until that happens, there will always be an opening for dictators to come in and police the people when they won't police themselves and dictators have the tendency to become totalitarian. People like to sleep mentally and often don't care that their society is becoming totalitarian until it turns into a negative totalitarianism. That's the flaw in the social contract. People are too willing to exchange their personal liberty for safety at any cost and too willing to let others do their thinking for them. Most people will work, but they don't like to think. YMMV.

 

[proteanmix]

I merely stated that I tend to avoid groups and why. I really would hate to be the person who had to inform on people and in heirarchies of groups that is what is done to ensure that people conform.

OK I have no problem with this, I'm just curious why you cut my whole post out and focused on that section of it to make the comments you did (queen beeism and the like).

And let's talk about conforming. I don't know how you're defining the word. In my two examples, the first was one of me being student and working with other students in a small group. I remember especially a guy showed up once (this is the worst example) and never even came back to the class again until we were presented. Hell yeah, I turned his ass into the professor. The other group members and I did all the work and he wanted to show up like he participated in the process. Yes, he should've been a conforming group member and participated and earned his grade like the rest of us did.

The second example that I gave was one specific to my film group and a member harassing other members through emails and finally in person. Once again, I don't know how you're defining the word conform, but I hardly think (and several of my members also) that was a proper way to behave.

I majored in Enlightenment history and yes it is all interesting as concepts go. I was giving my own take on what the modern social contract really is. Even social causes now are administered by groups funded and working within confines of what is deemed useful by the rulers. They provide a relief valve to prevent rebellion for change. They are allowed to provide just enough relief to prevent mass rebellion but not enough relief to increase too much power in the lower classes. Most of our labor as modern people goes to support a heirarchy that allows an elite to live in luxury and to play power games with each other, be that heirarchy call itself capitalism or communism (there is no true communism or free market in this world), it becomes the same with concentrated power and wealth at the top due to ever moving change to power concentrated in the hands of a few.

The social contract is a band aid and is not the final answer. Real change in society can't happen on a permanent basis until enough individuals come to the point to where they get in control of their own minds and actions and stop looking for a Big Daddy to lead them and stop abdicating their own personal responsibility to think things out for themselves. Until that happens, there will always be an opening for dictators to come in and police the people when they won't police themselves and dictators have the tendency to become totalitarian. People like to sleep mentally and often don't care that their society is becoming totalitarian until it turns into a negative totalitarianism. That's the flaw in the social contract. People are too willing to exchange their personal liberty for safety at any cost and too willing to let others do their thinking for them. Most people will work, but they don't like to think. YMMV.

I completely agree with this statement. I'm not as knowledgeable in the particulars of social contract theory as you are, I merely wanted to highlight that we give up some rights in order to have a stable society, and in my case film group.

 

[heart]

OK I have no problem with this, I'm just curious why you cut my whole post out and focused on that section of it to make the comments you did (queen beeism and the like).

The whole post just brought back ugh type memories of groups and group politics and the like. It is me, not you.

I don't mind doing my part in the scheme of life but oh how I hate dealing with people in groups.

Jung's The Undiscovered Self is just about my favorite book.

 

[Cindyrella]

From what I know from one ENFJ, who I have known/dated for three years, he had a hard time delegating. He'd rather jump in and do the work himself because he figured no one else would. But he is also a highly motivated person, very hard working compared to his peers. Once his superiors told him to delegate the responsibilities to his junior Marines, he finally did, and was effective. He made sure not to come off as overbearing, but he was assertive. He only had to have one conversation with his Marines before they started becoming much more productive, actively learning more about their job.

I think this talk about group work is interesting. I have always hated doing group projects in college for two reasons. On one hand, I hated it because I knew there was going to be ONE person who wouldn't do their part and we'd have to work that much harder to make up for it. However, as much as I wanted to, I didn't feel comfortable stepping up and "taking charge" of the situation. And even when I thought the others had awful ideas, I just went along with whatever they did. I've gotten better over time, learning how to assert myself and sway the group toward what I want to do. But I still won't be so direct as to say, "hey, scratch your idea, this will work better. Hey you, you'll work on this, and you, you'll be doing this." I just can't do that.

I have a hard time telling anyone to do anything. I'd rather just...ask nicely, lol.

 

[Mycroft]

Though it may not represent leadership across the board, INTJs are the most over-represented leadership type, followed by ENTJs.

...really? Wow. I had always assumed it would be ENTJs. We INTJs are hampered by our need for LOADS of alone time.

 

[ptgatsby]

...really? Wow. I had always assumed it would be ENTJs. We INTJs are hampered by our need for LOADS of alone time.

Well, at the senior management/CEO level, you guys make up about 1-5% of the population but are in excess of 15% of the positions. ENTJs are the next highest (also 1-5%ish and 9%). From memory, since the book is at work. (Type Talk at Work).

 

[Mycroft]

Well, at the senior management/CEO level, you guys make up about 1-5% of the population but are in excess of 15% of the positions. ENTJs are the next highest (also 1-5%ish and 9%). From memory, since the book is at work. (Type Talk at Work).

I guess that just shows the extent to which we're willing to go for the sake of getting a private office!

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

...really? Wow. I had always assumed it would be ENTJs. We INTJs are hampered by our need for LOADS of alone time.

I have heard that ENTJs actually need some alone time. Maybe these people are mislabeled as INTJs?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't really think you can say one type makes the best leader, unless you first define leader. Then second you must define what makes a leader the best.

Is an ISTP quarterback that leads his team to win the superbowl a great leader?

What about an ISFJ head nurse that keeps everyone on track while also making sure patients get the best bedside manner?

Could Einstein be considered a leader? (As in he is a leader in modern science.)

Could Micheal Moore be considered a leader? (As in he leads people to consider various political views.)

What makes a leader great? Is it number of followers (then the Pope is near the lead)? Monetary accomplishments (Bill Gates must be near the top)? Physical accomplishments (the Pharoah responsible for the pyramids is near the top)? What about a leader that inspires such loyalty that people will follow him to the gates of hell (Napolean lead his troops to Russia which is pretty much the same thing)?

Could you consider Dr. M. L. King to be a great leader? He might not have accomplished something that you can tangably measure like other leaders, but I think if you polled people on who is a great leader he would be near the top of a whole lot of people's lists.

Basically I think while all types have various strengths and weaknesses when it comes to leadership, you can find great leaders of any type. However, it does depend on how you define leadership.

 

[Mycroft]

I have heard that ENTJs actually need some alone time. Maybe these people are mislabeled as INTJs?

I think that ENTJs are probably the single most mislabeled of the types; in my experience they have a lot of traits commonly associated with introverts. One of the ENTJs I know finds most people petty and annoying and as a result keeps a close circle of friends. He reads a lot, and indeed values his free time, but there's no doubting that his psychological focus is on the outer world.

To put it more succinctly, I think that ENTJs are the least social of all the extraverts, and get mislabeled as INTJs frequently.

 

[runvardh]

I think that ENTJs are probably the single most mislabeled of the types; in my experience they have a lot of traits commonly associated with introverts. One of the ENTJs I know finds most people petty and annoying and as a result keeps a close circle of friends. He reads a lot, and indeed values his free time, but there's no doubting that his psychological focus is on the outer world.

To put it more succinctly, I think that ENTJs are the least social of all the extraverts, and get mislabeled as INTJs frequently.

I guess that helps since one saying is: "it's lonely at the top"

 

[Shimpei]

I do think ENFJs make great leaders because they are really charismatic people who draw people to themselves in a genuine way.