• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Management bias against women is actually bias against Fs?

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
According to this research, managers are overwhelmingly one of the following 4 types:

ESTJ (22.5%)
ENTJ
ISTJ
ENTP

Over half of all managers have a TJ preference (unsurprisingly).

This holds true across a broad range of industries and countries. (Only exceptions being Agriculture/Forestry - where ISTPs replace ENTJs, and the Dutch, who apparently prefer ESTPs to ISTJs.)

Now, the male/female % split in this management sample is 76/22. This would ordinarily be explained in terms of an (implicit or explicit) bias in favour of males. However, according to this study only 30% of women in the general population are Ts. Given this, the pool of "suitable" women (assuming T is a favourable trait) shrinks considerably.

In fact, it appears that most of the variance can be explained by type, rather than gender.

86% of managers are Ts, (compared with a population avg of 46%.)
i.e. just under twice as many as would be expected
76% of female managers are Ts, (compared to pop. avg of 30%)
2.5 times as many as would be expected

This highlights a massive ( largely hidden) bias against Fs, both male and female. The majority of people (54%) express a preference for F, and yet they are overwhelmingly managed by Ts.

Naturally, one can debate whether T is more valued because of its association with masculinity. But, that's a more subtle issue.
One can also debate whether T managers actually make better managers; again, another question entirely. (Personally, I doubt it.)

Also worthy of note is that all of the NTs are significantly overrepresented, (more so than STJs, for example, compared to expected % based on gen. pop.). The biggest variance is for INTJ females, with SSR 12.

The order (from highest to lowest, adjusted for representation in population) is as follows:

Overrepresented
ENTJ
INTJ
ENTP
INTP
ESTJ

Expected levels
ISTJ
ESTP

Underrepresented
ENFJ
ISTP
ENFP
INFJ
INFP
ESFJ
ISFJ
ESFP
ISFP

So much for "Sensor bias"...

There's a pretty clear hierarchy of NT >ST>NF> SF (note that academia isn't included, where one might expect even greater N bias).
With J/P and E/I, perhaps surprisingly, being of lesser importance. (Js doing better than Ps and Es than Is within the broader pattern.)

So, T > N > J > E are favoured, in that order.

In fact, other than the ENFJ/ISTP flip, it's an amazingly consistent pattern.

Lots of important implications, methinks... The main one being, IMO, that if we really want to encourage diversity/inclusivity, we need to start valuing a more F (cooperative/personal) management style, rather than simply focussing on an assumed gender divide.

Report draws the alternative, somewhat crass (though not unexpected) conclusion that "looking at some of the biases that seem to occur, it would be valuable to gain an understanding of whether managers are recognising that in order to cope with a managerial role, they need to develop the ability to behave in ways typically reported for ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ or ENTP types."
 

kelric

Feline Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,169
MBTI Type
INtP
Report draws the alternative, somewhat crass (though not unexpected) conclusion that "looking at some of the biases that seem to occur, it would be valuable to gain an understanding of whether managers are recognising that in order to cope with a managerial role, they need to develop the ability to behave in ways typically reported for ESTJ, ENTJ, ISTJ or ENTP types."

Well, I don't much like it either... but the goal for hiring someone into a management role, in many(most) cases, really does focus on a very practical, impersonal, strongly goal-oriented desire. That goal is often to make money, save money, increase product/money efficiency ratio, etc. More personal considerations, that stereotypes would guide us into believing the domain of F types, are usually only a minor consideration - and even then only in a "if people like us, they may give us more time/money" way. So in the pursuit of a largely impersonal goal, it's not surprising that people whose preferences may lie in more subjective traits are underrepresented.

Although I'm not fond of the whole "function" theory, it's interesting to note that among the top six most over-represented types in management, all four of the "Te" types are present (ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ). Also interesting that the other two are INTP's and ENTP's - who, I think it's fair to say, are rather notorious for hating being told what to do ("managed"). One way to avoid being "managed" is to rise up and manage others (even though that is equally lousy, in different ways, at least for me as an intp).
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

metalmommy

so ready
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
718
One thing that the study doesn't represent tho us people like me. I'm an INfJ and while I'm not yet part of senior management (I will be in the next year or 2), I have the ear of senior management and often have significant input to personnel issues (I'm in charge of HR).

Point of that being, I wonder how many of us underrepresented types are a strong influence within a company, altho not necessarily called management.

This, I think, has a couple of issues. One being that we do influence the function of the company probably more so than is immediately recognized. Another being that we're doing the work of managers without the title, recognition, etc. (I've often found myself in this situation...almost every job I've ever had, actually).

This could be partly due to difficulty in promoting ourselves in the way that ENTJs do, for example. We don't push for recognition and advancement the way some types more characteristically do.

So, I wonder then if it's as much bias as it is picking the "squeakiest" wheels. Those people who are out front, promoting themselves as "management material."
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, I don't much like it either... but the goal for hiring someone into a management role, in many(most) cases, really does focus on a very practical, impersonal, strongly goal-oriented desire. That goal is often to make money, save money, increase product/money efficiency ratio, etc.
You omit that short-term results are valued over longer term goals. That's a deep flaw in capitalist culture directly inherited (I would suggest) from too many greedy, ambitious, short-sighted TJs in positions of power.

More personal considerations, that stereotypes would guide us into believing the domain of F types,
Wait... That's not a stereotype. It's the definition of Feeling.

Also interesting that the other two are INTP's and ENTP's - who, I think it's fair to say, are rather notorious for hating being told what to do ("managed"). One way to avoid being "managed" is to rise up and manage others (even though that is equally lousy, in different ways, at least for me as an intp).
True. And that may be one reason for INTP overrepresentation (though we are just as loathe to tell others what to do, I would have said). I suspect in this case (since we aren't exactly known for our ambition) it might be a bit of "the Peter principle" at work. People who are highly competent in one job being promoted out of their comfort zone. I know that I have had to work quite hard NOT to be promoted in this way. I have no interest (or aptitude) in managing anyone /thing other than myself and my own projects. On that point I am quite inflexible. Fortunately, IT has dual career paths in recognition of this tendency in people who are technically-minded.

I find it hard to believe that the average INTP would make a better people manager than the average ESFJ, for example. Developing / relating to people is not our forte. Neither is planning, organising or budgeting, for that matter. We tend to have a pretty narrow (if deep) skillset.

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

- 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 there is no data from the East, all the countries/industries demonstrate a near identical picture. Very little variance despite vast cultural differences (between Sweden and the US, for example, or the public sector vs banking and finance)
I think it's simpler than that. It's about dominant, power-seeking behaviours pushing a person to the top. (This is a less than surprising finding.)
as you go higher up the ladder, NTJs are represented in disproportionate numbers
So are psychopaths. Coincidence? ;)
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.
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. :p
- 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.
The data don't support Js having much of an edge, so I doubt that. Certainly in the creative industries, there's no advantage to acting like a J.
As for Fs acting like Ts, I guess they have to, if they want promotion. They shouldn't have to. It's morally wrong to value attributes that are innate to less than half the population over those of the majority (unless they can be shown objectively to have intrinsic value). It's nothing short of typological tyranny.

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.
Of course they are. This shouldn't surprise anyone. TJ dogmatism is rarely a productive means of inspiring anyone/accomplishing anything useful. No one should assume that the status quo represents a meritocracy.

One thing that the study doesn't represent tho us people like me. I'm an INfJ and while I'm not yet part of senior management (I will be in the next year or 2), I have the ear of senior management and often have significant input to personnel issues (I'm in charge of HR).

Point of that being, I wonder how many of us underrepresented types are a strong influence within a company, altho not necessarily called management.

This, I think, has a couple of issues. One being that we do influence the function of the company probably more so than is immediately recognized. Another being that we're doing the work of managers without the title, recognition, etc. (I've often found myself in this situation...almost every job I've ever had, actually).
You forgot to mention: much lower pay.
There is nothing that suggests the best person for the job gets the job, in fact, if anything, the opposite is often true. The global financial meltdown is the inevitable result of what happens when you prize short-term results for the few and risk-taking, psychopathic behaviours above corporate responsibility, ethics and sustainability.
This could be partly due to difficulty in promoting ourselves in the way that ENTJs do, for example. We don't push for recognition and advancement the way some types more characteristically do.

So, I wonder then if it's as much bias as it is picking the "squeakiest" wheels. Those people who are out front, promoting themselves as "management material."
I think some of it is about ambition, some of it is about hardwork (or at least being seen to be hard-working) some of it is just balls-out brazenness and overconfidence, some is about being politically astute and Machiavellian. Precious little is about talent or competence. Aggression and narcissism will get you further than competence in this world.
Of course, this ties in nicely with the "pathological left-hemisphere dominance" theory of which I'm such a fan. Only valuing its own supremely narrow focus on power and manipulation, blind to the value of everything else.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Id love to see myself managing something/someone.....id be sitting there laughing at myself the entire time :happy2:

I swear, my experience with finding work is the same as with looking directly at the sun with the naked eye; I can do it.....it just damages me in the process.

Not sure why...it's probably an attitude reason. Im not exactly a....'team player'. In any case, back to the topic at hand this isn't that surprising.

Although it does require that you give MBTI more credit than it really deserves, especially in the statistics deparment. However, I agree with the points raised here. Traits of management are largely applicable to TJ types.

In any case ive got no desire for it, it pulls me far too much outside of myself for it to be a comfortable experience and while we cannot always be comfortable, sometimes it's a case of putting your foot down....usually on the manager's face.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Hmm, interesting.

There are so many ties into this that I am not sure where exactly to start.

I think that there are a lot of personalities who simply do not WANT to be in management, or work their way up into positions of greater power, responsibility, etc. And, I think a lot of the F types would fall into that. But it's probably more interesting to think about the Why behind why that is. I'd lump myself into that bunch, even though my direct supervisor would actually like to groom me for that path, or sees me as a viable candidate for that sort of path. But the thing is, is I don't want it. 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.
 

COLORATURA

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
82
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Hmm, interesting.

There are so many ties into this that I am not sure where exactly to start.

I think that there are a lot of personalities who simply do not WANT to be in management, or work their way up into positions of greater power, responsibility, etc. And, I think a lot of the F types would fall into that.

My thoughts exactly. I would think an F wanting to keep conflict at a minimum, along with seeing employees on a more personal level would make it very uncomfortable for them. I would think T's wouldn't have as much of an issue with this.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My thoughts exactly. I would think an F wanting to keep conflict at a minimum, along with seeing employees on a more personal level would make it very uncomfortable for them. I would think T's wouldn't have as much of an issue with this.

For me it's more that I intrinsically disagree with the approach and expectations of most management - in terms of short-term results that @Salome alludes to, lack of a work-life balance the higher up you go (and therefore expected timeframes being adjusted to factor in the lack of the work-life balance), everyone having their own agenda and the general theme of being unaware or willfully oblivious to the actual things going on and impacts on things based on making decisions without caring about the ripple effects on other processes, etc. Generally speaking, it's the tendency of 'we'll get it 70-80% right' and run with it, let everyone else deal with the muck that ensues.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
OMFG! Thank you for this thread! It supports what I've been saying all along about the supposed "S favoritism of the real world."
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
OMFG! Thank you for this thread! It supports what I've been saying all along about the supposed "S favoritism of the real world."

But...but that's all we have!! We have to feel superior.
 

UniqueMixture

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
3,004
MBTI Type
estj
Enneagram
378
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I wonder when humanity will evolve beyond artificial "big man" tribal hierarchies.
 

COLORATURA

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
82
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
For me it's more that I intrinsically disagree with the approach and expectations of most management - in terms of short-term results that @Salome alludes to, lack of a work-life balance the higher up you go (and therefore expected timeframes being adjusted to factor in the lack of the work-life balance), everyone having their own agenda and the general theme of being unaware or willfully oblivious to the actual things going on and impacts on things based on making decisions without caring about the ripple effects on other processes, etc. Generally speaking, it's the tendency of 'we'll get it 70-80% right' and run with it, let everyone else deal with the muck that ensues.

That may be what it is for you, and maybe many other "F" types. However, I would say it would depend upon the person & their values. I actually read in a book once about an INFP whom most thought was an super-hard ESTJ at work. That is b/c they were in a management position, and b/c of their own feelings of ineptness at being a Te dominant person, they became forced into "the grip" of their inferior function. Pretty interesting story. Maybe if I find it I will post...

*Another interesting note, alot of people theorize that Hitler was an INFP "in the grip."
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
That may be what it is for you, and maybe many other "F" types. However, I would say it would depend upon the person & their values.

Oh... I agree. I didn't intend to come across that I was speaking for all F's, I was just stating my own reasons, as my own reasons differed from what you'd initially written.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Hmm, interesting.

There are so many ties into this that I am not sure where exactly to start.

I think that there are a lot of personalities who simply do not WANT to be in management, or work their way up into positions of greater power, responsibility, etc. And, I think a lot of the F types would fall into that. But it's probably more interesting to think about the Why behind why that is. I'd lump myself into that bunch, even though my direct supervisor would actually like to groom me for that path, or sees me as a viable candidate for that sort of path. But the thing is, is I don't want it. 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.

I've heard this before - not just from Fs. I sometimes have a hard time understanding it. There is an ISTJ Enneagram 1 who worked for me. She's very talented. She has little motivation to progress though. Has idealistic views on what she wants to do. She won't work on a couple of key weaknesses that hold her back. I did what I could.

You omit that short-term results are valued over longer term goals. That's a deep flaw in capitalist culture directly inherited (I would suggest) from too many greedy, ambitious, short-sighted TJs in positions of power.

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. In my last job, I worked for a private partnership. It was a great place to work. There was a longer term focus on investment. Then they went public. The culture is now completely changed. It's about quarterly earnings, sales, numbers. It's all that matters.

I find it hard to believe that the average INTP would make a better people manager than the average ESFJ, for example. Developing / relating to people is not our forte. Neither is planning, organising or budgeting, for that matter. We tend to have a pretty narrow (if deep) skillset.

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.

What does it advocate?

MBTI is used in leadership development though perhaps quite poorly in most cases. The book I referenced above brings together a lot of research with an intent of understanding practical implications of that research and how MBTI applies in a leadership context. It's really a book for an advanced practitioner involved in leadership development and someone that uses MBTI. Basically, it's advocating the use of MBTI in leadership development.

Though there is no data from the East, all the countries/industries demonstrate a near identical picture. Very little variance despite vast cultural differences (between Sweden and the US, for example, or the public sector vs banking and finance)
I think it's simpler than that. It's about dominant, power-seeking behaviours pushing a person to the top. (This is a less than surprising finding.)
So are psychopaths. Coincidence? ;)

I think some of it is about ambition, some of it is about hardwork (or at least being seen to be hard-working) some of it is just balls-out brazenness and overconfidence, some is about being politically astute and Machiavellian. Precious little is about talent or competence. Aggression and narcissism will get you further than competence in this world.
Of course, this ties in nicely with the "pathological left-hemisphere dominance" theory of which I'm such a fan. Only valuing its own supremely narrow focus on power and manipulation, blind to the value of everything else.

There is nothing that suggests the best person for the job gets the job, in fact, if anything, the opposite is often true. The global financial meltdown is the inevitable result of what happens when you prize short-term results for the few and risk-taking, psychopathic behaviours above corporate responsibility, ethics and sustainability.

Cynicism run amok. I haven't seen any studies done in Latin America. It's not just about power-seeking behaviors. You are wrong when you say it is not about talent and competence. It absolutely is. 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. Most times, they are performing at that level already. Talented people who apply themselves and have ambition progress. Yes, being politically astute is important as is confidence. There is nothing wrong with those things.

Narcissistic behavior? I saw an extreme case of this once. The person imploded within two years. Nobody could stand working with her and she did not deliver results.

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. The actions of a few individuals destroyed those companies. Hubris, arrogance, dishonesty - these things can have pretty serious impacts. "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time." People are found out. Ethics are viewed as very important at the company where I work. Diversity is well. It's about having an optimal and effective workforce. Reducing turnover of high performers. Companies that do well attract, develop and retain individuals that are talented and perform at high levels.

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. :p

That is true.

Edit: Also, on diversity of MBTI or other types in the workplace, I've got the following opinion. 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. To the extent there is more money in it, and risks are reduced (in relation to value), behavior will evolve. If there isn't more money in it then nothing will change. The other thing that can change things is regulatory pressure or laws, which certainly was a stimulant to women and minorities gaining greater equality but it was only that - a stimulus.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Over half of all managers have a TJ preference (unsurprisingly).

This holds true across a broad range of industries and countries. (Only exceptions being Agriculture/Forestry - where ISTPs replace ENTJs, and the Dutch, who apparently prefer ESTPs to ISTJs.)

Now, the male/female % split in this management sample is 76/22. This would ordinarily be explained in terms of an (implicit or explicit) bias in favour of males. However, according to this study only 30% of women in the general population are Ts. Given this, the pool of "suitable" women (assuming T is a favourable trait) shrinks considerably.

In fact, it appears that most of the variance can be explained by type, rather than gender.

86% of managers are Ts, (compared with a population avg of 46%.)
i.e. just under twice as many as would be expected
76% of female managers are Ts, (compared to pop. avg of 30%)
2.5 times as many as would be expected

This highlights a massive ( largely hidden) bias against Fs, both male and female. The majority of people (54%) express a preference for F, and yet they are overwhelmingly managed by Ts.

Naturally, one can debate whether T is more valued because of its association with masculinity. But, that's a more subtle issue.
One can also debate whether T managers actually make better managers; again, another question entirely. (Personally, I doubt it.)

Also worthy of note is that all of the NTs are significantly overrepresented, (more so than STJs, for example, compared to expected % based on gen. pop.). The biggest variance is for INTJ females, with SSR 12.
An interesting statistical compilation. I have heard (and agree with) the claim that most male/female differences in everyday communication are really T/F differences. This report presents convincing evidence that the same is true in the professional sphere, in short, supporting the highlighted.

Are T traits are more valued due to their association with masculinity, or are they associated with masculinity by men because they are seen to be valuable? We say and observe that women are more likely to display F preference and traits, but these are the traits that have been expected and encouraged in women and girls for generations. I wonder sometimes if the entire gender disparity on the T/F scale is "man-made".

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. Is it not OK for management to be disproportionately TJ, while art might be, say, disproportionately SP? Management as an activity can certainly benefit from the qualities usually associated with F and P. Artists similarly need to attend to the financial and promotional side of their work, but we don't address this by encouraging more TJs to become artists.

You omit that short-term results are valued over longer term goals. That's a deep flaw in capitalist culture directly inherited (I would suggest) from too many greedy, ambitious, short-sighted TJs in positions of power.
You have identified one of the most important shortcomings in business, and even broader society. 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. It is a quality I blame on "the system", but the system is powerless without people to prop it up, and the ambitious NTJ, like anyone else, can too easily find him/herself doing just that in the name of achieving some long-term benefit that always remains out of reach.

The data don't support Js having much of an edge, so I doubt that. Certainly in the creative industries, there's no advantage to acting like a J.
As for Fs acting like Ts, I guess they have to, if they want promotion. They shouldn't have to. It's morally wrong to value attributes that are innate to less than half the population over those of the majority (unless they can be shown objectively to have intrinsic value). It's nothing short of typological tyranny.
Even in the creative industries, there are distinct disadvantages to being unable to act like a J when the situation demands. And why shouldn't F's have to act like T's 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. There is something imbalanced here. Where do we draw the line between asserting our individuality (I am who I am and it is wrong for you to expect me to be otherwise), and recognizing weaknesses that are holding us back or keeping us from our own goals and desires? Yes, we have the right to refuse to act like some other type. We can refuse to study French, too, but shouldn't then expect to be able to converse with a Frenchman (unless, of course, he has bothered to learn English).

There is nothing that suggests the best person for the job gets the job, in fact, if anything, the opposite is often true. The global financial meltdown is the inevitable result of what happens when you prize short-term results for the few and risk-taking, psychopathic behaviours above corporate responsibility, ethics and sustainability.

I think some of it is about ambition, some of it is about hardwork (or at least being seen to be hard-working) some of it is just balls-out brazenness and overconfidence, some is about being politically astute and Machiavellian. Precious little is about talent or competence. Aggression and narcissism will get you further than competence in this world.
What about those studies that show people favor friendliness over competence? That doesn't help, either, but should favor the Fs of the world, I suppose. The highlighted is unfortunately true. It is very frustrating to work for someone who neither displays professional competence, nor puts the goals of the organization first. Fortunately my organization doesn't do too badly in selecting managers. Hard work seems to be rewarded, and seniority to some degree, and a large dose of luck, i.e. being in the right place at the right time, as long as you are able to make good on the opportunity. If you don't, you will be passed over. Interestingly the worst supervisor I have had in recent years was also the only F, an ENFJ.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
So we should artificially select feeler types to play with our vested capital.


You know, that line of thinking is why my school stopped playing dodgeball in eighth grade.
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I've contemplated that before. I think the basic conclusion is solid (T>F bias), but I'd attribute the apparent N>S bias to the fact that many smart sensors tend to test as intuitives (Att. Ti-tards: no, I'm not implying intuitives are smarter than sensors).
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I've contemplated that before. I think the basic conclusion is solid (T>F bias), but I'd attribute the apparent N>S bias to the fact that many smart sensors tend to test as intuitives (Att. Ti-tards: no, I'm not implying intuitives are smarter than sensors).

I agree with this and it is something I have mused about myself.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So we should artificially select feeler types to play with our vested capital.

You know, that line of thinking is why my school stopped playing dodgeball in eighth grade.

Are you suggesting that the selection of Ts (almost exclusively) is not "artificial"?
If so, you must believe that there is something about Ts that makes them inherently superior managers. Why don't you share what you think that is ?
 
Top