That's why I need descriptions of what you guys do see and the thought process that goes into it to come to a more accurate understanding. I'm glad that umlauu took the time to do that and that you also said something. I do not mean to be insulting and in piecing things together, I realize that it sounded more like a statement rather than the picture that had emerged for me thus far whose accuracy I was checking on.
The bolded is huge. You're definitely understanding where the breakdown occurs. As an INTJ, I can tell you that it is not easy to fix. Our natural mode is to just assert our current hypothesis, but to others it doesn't sound like a hypothesis, but a declaration of truth, and in your Fe case, an accusation, where no accusation is intended.
This is exactly how Fe unintentionally jabs Fi. In fact, such behavior very reliably types others as Fe when they do this to me. It is particularly interesting how often I spot "INTJ"s doing this very thing.
I'm going to go into the nitpicks, here. The point isn't to rub your nose in it, but rather to show how easy it is to end up making the very accusations you don't intend to make. If this isn't a topic you want to discuss, just let me know and I'll delete this entire post. I'm hoping that sharing this helps everyone in the thread, but not at your expense, OK?
In PB's case (and I admit I don't know the details, nor am I saying that for sure the desired outcome would have happened if she had done things the Fe way),
Actually, I have noticed that those with strong Fe very often start off with disclaimers like this. We Fi users tend to think, "uh oh", because it means the Fe user hasn't figured out how to say it "nicely" and is about to unload.
An ENFJ I know will say things like, "I really respect you and what you are doing, but ..." (She's someone I love dearly, btw.) Then she unloads with her unadulterated opinion, interspersing disclaimers of not trying to personally attack, even as the rest of her statements sound like personal attacks. For my part, they mostly bounce off my Te armor, and I just take them as "her opinions on the matter" and I don't think any worse of her for offering them. In fact, I trust her opinion very much, especially on how to deal with people-problems and human relationships.
My advice: a better caveat introduction would be, "I am trying to figure out how things happened here. I don't want to make any bad assumptions, so please let me know if I do."
despite her publically dealing with what was ethically wrong and making sure everyone was aware of how wrong it was, the end result was:
1) She was not present to continue making a difference
2) The workroom was still unsafe for other employees
3) That situation was unlikely to change.
This bit sounds like you said, "PB failed." Not only does it sound like it, you enumerate the failures. It reads like an indictment.
I
know you weren't intending it as such, rather it is a cogent Fe analysis, in preparation for working on a new approach. I'm sure you address your own problems in this manner. I know I do, though in a more Te way. The difference is that we actually
do have full knowledge of our own personal circumstances, choices and an understanding of where our responsibility lies. This is not the case when it's someone else.
My advice: don't list out the flaws. Instead, ask what the other person took away from the experience. What was he/she proud of? What could have worked better? You'll find that an Fi user has already analyzed the hell out of the situation.
After all, the Fi user brought it up as an example, therefore it is likely something intrinsic to the Fi user's self-understanding ... which is why the "accusations" hurt even more than you would normally expect.
By using a little strategy and doing it privately, she may have been able to help the employer understand why this is such a big deal, how it could personally affect him and offer him an option that would allow him to still look good in front of his employees AND provide them with a safe work environment.
This is the bit that goes along with the xkcd cartoon I posted earlier. This is a perfectly cogent analysis of the situation based on the limited information you had.
The problem with this is that, especially in the Fi individual dealing with you as an Fe individual case, you effectively take what the Fi individual said, and "use it against them." It's a pattern I've seen over and over.
- An Fi person relates a personal experience.
- The Fe person offers well-meaning advice
- The Fe person expects to be corrected if the advice is unwarranted.
- Instead, the Fi person feels accused, wondering what is wrong, and if pressed will attack back or just leave the thread.
This is especially true on a public forum, where people are sharing ideas, and using personal examples to show how their ideas are true, and Fe comes in and says, "Well, you could have handled that a lot better,"
instead of talking about the idea being shared.
My advice: don't offer unsolicited advice. If someone is talking about X, and goes into personal tangent Y, it's OK to
ask about tangent Y, but not to offer advice on tangent Y. Ideally, one should try to focus on topic X, and only clarify Y in order to better understand X.
I'd be the first to say that she was treated very unfairly and that the employee was being unethical. I don't think she did something wrong.
Here's another disclaimer, which means the next statement is going to do Fe analysis again. (BTW, I don't doubt your disclaimers, nor the disclaimers that my Fe friends use. It's just their way of saying they're talking about something that is difficult to talk about. I know that if they really had something against me, there would be no disclaimer, or they'd just remain silent.)
I do think that by paying more attention to the delivery of the message though, the chances might have been higher that change may have occurred.
In other words, given a limited description of the situation, for which you have a single witness, and no transcript, you are prepared to say that it could have been handled better.
How do you know that?
Look at it from the others' point of view: feeling accused, how do they say, "No, it was handled as well as it could be handled," without it sounding defensive, without it sounding like one is in denial? When they do say something like that, they are in fact accused of not owning up, of being defensive, irresponsible, in denial. (Not necessarily by you, but by others who have perhaps only read a fraction of the thread, motivated more by a desire to advocate responsibility than a desire to understand the original story.)
My advice: be patient and listen, instead of offering analysis. One of the things that I've noticed when I got into question/answer mode (with Ti, for example), is that my analysis of the situation changes, sometimes
drastically with each new piece of information. Ti tends to offer up what Te considers to be "tidbits" of information, and it can take a long while before enough data is present to really understand what Ti is getting at. To Te, the Ti sounds simplistic (Ti has the same opinion of Te), uttering obvious truths that don't imply anything. The trick in the Te/Ti case is to let Ti open up enough to get the key bit of information that puts everything in context.
In other words, in your Fe/Fi case, you have a plausible context based on what you've heard so far, but if you're patient and listen, that context gets better and better, more and more informed, until you get a "real" click from your Ni, and suddenly you understand the others' perspective.
This is how I've learned to do it - some Ni "clicks" are more certain than others. If I have a sucky click, I know I need more info and ask. If I have a strong click, I ask more directly as a hypothesis, "So you mean to say that <insert my theory here>?" and get a yes or no.
...
What's a sucky click? If your intuition is saying someone whom you like and respect and is very intelligent did or said something that is boneheaded stupid or wrong or evil, that is 99.9% likely to be a sucky click. In general, assume that those with whom you converse are good, intelligent, honorable people, and treat them as such. Reject intuitions that imply they're stupid or despicable. They will, by and large, feel your respect and respond in kind.
Don't worry, the 0.1% will prove their poor character to you soon enough, and you'll be able to handle them appropriately.
The remainder will teach you for the rest of your life, because the sucky clicks mean you have something to learn.