[NT] NT Leadership

[FDG]

I've had a Fe dominant boss trying to inject morale in a non-Fe group (ENTJ, ISTP, ISFJ, ENFP). The effect is the opposite. People think "Why is he wasting time in all that bullshit, instead of telling us what should be done"? Bottom line: it's just a matter of preference. I don't need somebody telling me "You can do it! Let's do it for X and Y". I already know why we are working...just tell me what to do, and I'll get it done. No need to build a "team" atmosphere. That kind of relationships either form naturally because of shared mindsets, or do not form at all.

 

[substitute]

^^ yes, indeed. ^^

I've looked upon T-preference friends of mine as they bemoan how they have to waste yet another evening going on some crappy "team building" exercise at the behest of their boss, or attend some pointless seminar on team dynamics and gentle criticism, when all they want to do is get their work done and go the fuck home. What would increase their morale would be if the boss would just tell them WTF they have to do, let them get on with it and give them honest feedback before giving them the next job, and cut all the phoney "harmonious workplace" crap.

Meanwhile my sister and mom (both ExFJ's) who sing the praises of these companies they work for, exactly because they make them do those things!

Go figure. I guess it's a case of choosing the people you hire carefully - and making sure I pick T's in future

Actually I think that might be my problem. Thinking just now about the people I've worked with all these years and the ones I've had to fire (including the recent spate), I must say that my company/work environment has been very T dominated, and the ones who've not lasted have all been F's.

So maybe that's what it is then. Personal preference.

Neither way of running a business is more or less effective than the other in objective terms - it all depends on the make-up of the staff. Obviously the bigger the company the more staff there are, so the more mixed bag you'll get. But since mine has always been proudly small...

Let's see... current staff (excluding the ones at issue) include: 2xENTJ, ENTP, INTJ (long term co-bosses, with me at the top), ESTJ, ISTJ and ISTP (long-term minions). The people here at issue are the noobs: ESFJ and ISFP and the pro's: ESFJ and ENFJ.

 

[Lookin4theBestNU]

I've had a Fe dominant boss trying to inject morale in a non-Fe group (ENTJ, ISTP, ISFJ, ENFP). The effect is the opposite.

I'm in agreement. Different things get different types to work depending on the job. There is no 'one size fits all approach' from what I have seen. I think this is where MBTI has helped the most in learning to apply it practically.

Go figure. I guess it's a case of choosing the people you hire carefully - and making sure I pick T's in future

When interviewing people I attempted to type them in the process. I knew what types would work best and I knew what types had a tendency to apply. After hiring I tested for accuracy. You know what you want so you don't make the same mistake again hopefully. That's a good thing.

 

[Park]

It is? I'd hardly call the equivalent of US$10 for an advert in the local paper 'costly' And besides, there's never been a shortage yet when I've fired someone, of people behind them wanting to step into their place.

Time and knowledge is money.
- Employee's knowledge about a company and it's structure has a value.
- The training and time spend on making sure people carry out their tasks they way you want them to has a value.
- The time spend on interviewing potential new employees has a value.
- The time spend on registrating people in the company system has a value.
- The time spend on fighting various unions because some people feel they've been sacked unfairly has a value.

With bosses having to be both businessmen and counsellors/morale officers.

I don't know if you read some of the debate I had with FL but here's a post I wrote to him:
If a leader isn't in tune with the emotional state of his/her employees, he/she simply isn't in tune with an essential part of his/her company. Yet, I've spend time with more primitive leaders who've litteraly bragged about treating their employees unnessecarily harsh and inconsiderate. These kind of simple minded old school leaders will usually explain their behaviour with "running a business is only about making money" to which I can only reply "exactly!". To willingly be blind to the emotional state of the people you'r hired to lead is willingly being blind to people you've invested in i.e. dangerous and foolish.

BTW, I don't know anything about the company you had or your leadership style, so I didn't post it as a pun to you, just as my generel opinion on the subject.

 

[Park]

Sometimes I think people have to draw the line with how far you're going to keep saying everything's the boss' fault. Sometimes the boss can do everything in their power, everything they're supposed to do, and yet things still come falling down because of some useless minion that simply doesn't pull their weight and lets everyone else down.

Yeah, some people were just not meant to work togeather. Like in all human relations, some people bring up the best in each other and others bring up the worst. Sometimes, guilt can be placed on why a co-work just didn't work out, other times it's just tough luck.

 

[hotmale]

Oh yeah... Excellent post.
I think nowadays people are allowed to be so touchy it's ridiculous. It's amazing how people get uptight and angry at some things. Everything in organizations these days is being geared towards manipulating others or "How to get others to do things for you while they feel happy about it".

Exactly, who has time to be everyone's therapist when you've got things to do?
I've noticed with ENTJs that because they are Te + Ne dominated that they learn to be very diplomatic- by strategically placing a well-received response here and there- but that often because it's said without the touchy-feely Extroverted Feeling- people might become inadvertently "hurt" when there is no emotion attached to responses.

 

[proteanmix]

This thread is turning into a cigar smoke filled room with mahogany wood and women serving drinks wearing bunny outfits.

 

[substitute]

This thread is turning into a cigar smoke filled room with mahogany wood and women serving drinks wearing bunny outfits.

Scrap the bunny outfits and I'll serve my own drinks TYVM, but otherwise... is that so bad?

And I prefer oak

EDIT - I will interject however that the INTJ and the ESTJ that work with/for me are both women... and the ENFJ I'm having trouble with is male. Just in case that was what you were thinking, y'know...

 

[proteanmix]

Scrap the bunny outfits and I'll serve my own drinks TYVM, but otherwise... is that so bad?

And I prefer oak

Yeah, it's cool as long as I get my pomegranate and mango aromatherapy with guys you could bounce a quarter off their chest feeding me grapes.

 

[ygolo]

The double standard is just unacceptable. If I were to "just forget" or "have too many personal problems" to sort out the wages one week, they'd all soon be lining up to tell me I should take care of my responsibilities when others are relying on me. Yet when their laziness literally meant that my wages were cut - since theirs were fixed salaries and what I got to live on was whatever was left of the takings once their wages and the overheads were taken out - well, that was just tough shit for me wasn't it?

You are the boss. That is the price you pay for being in the leadership. Most people are inherently incompetent at leadership (wheter they like taking charge or not). I got a little taste myself, and decided it wasn't for me.

The problems you talk about are presicely the things you need to get good at solving, to be a good leader.

When you look at the world leaders of today and of history, the good ones are those who lead with no regard to their 'title', the bad ones are the ones who rely solely on their title or position to stay in power.

Theory X vs Theory Y. Both are self-fullfilling.

EDIT:If you don't want to lead but would rather just manage... have you thought about getting contract workers?

 

[substitute]

You are the boss. That is the price you pay for being in the leadership.

Yah, I get that. They're the employees. Being expected to work for their pay and getting fired or disciplined for being lazy and/or incompetent is the price they pay for that.

The problems you talk about are presicely the things you need to get good at solving, to be a good leader.

Yeah I am good at solving them. Like I said: warning, then dismissal. Only trouble comes when I get too nice and don't want to fire them because y'know, as a person, I like them. I'm not quite as merciless as the ENTJ's and sometimes I let my nice side get the better of me. I soon come to my senses though

EDIT:If you don't want to lead but would rather just manage... have you thought about getting contract workers?

Yeah I have done in the past. But I prefer not to - like I say I'm a bit of a philanthropist and I've a weakness for giving people a chance who wouldn't otherwise get one. Sometimes it pays off and you get a good colleague for years, other times it doesn't and you have to fire someone. It's just the way it is - doesn't mean I have to enjoy the unpleasant parts though, and the fact I don't, and that I sometimes feel a bit betrayed on a personal level when someone I've stuck my neck out for throws it in my face by taking the piss, doesn't mean I'm not a good leader

 

[Park]

Yeah I am good at solving them. Like I said: warning, then dismissal.

You keep claiming to have good problem solving skills but the only solution you've presented to any staff problems you've brought up sofar was warning/dismissal.

I'd say that qualifies as a problem solving *skill* but not *skills* and hardly worthy of the adjective *good*.

 

[substitute]

You keep claiming to have good problem solving skills but the only solution you've presented to any staff problems you've brought up sofar was warning/dismissal.

I'd say that qualifies as a problem solving *skill* but not *skills* and hardly worthy of the adjective *good*.

Hold on a minute, by the time it gets to that phase it's only after I've done loads of other stuff and tried my best over a period of time to resolve the situation. But I was talking specifically about a situation where it had already gone past that point. I wasn't asking "what do you do the minute an employee shows any fault?" but "what do you do when they've consistently, over a period of time, proven themselves to be completely imcompetent and resistant to all efforts and sorthing things out, abusing second chances?" In which case it seems that you're saying "keep them on anyway because it's your fault that they're useless"...??

And besides, that method is good at solving the problem. It solves my problem anyway - gets rid of the useless person and the chaos they cause. Whether that upsets them is, frankly, their problem. And it has worked for me and my business for many years. And if I were as draconian as you're painting me there, then how come I have managed to retain quite a few members of staff (losing only 3 in 14 years, none of which were due to my leadership 'failings' but as mentioned before, emmigration and THEIR dishonesty) as well as a reputation for being nice to work for?

I suppose you're going to say it was up to me to create an environment of trust and respect and that the employee I fired for trying to steal large amounts of money from the company and fiddle his hours sheet, wouldn't have done it if I'd been a better leader, and that I failed to motivate him to not be a thieving bastard?

But meh, it seems you've already got me boxed for some reason and judged. And I know better than to argue with an INTP who's made their mind up

 

[Heero]

As an ENTJ-influenced ENTP who finds himself in charge of lots of people quite often along with his ENTJ colleagues, we often seem to find ourselves being put up against the wall and shot by the 'nice squad' for daring to think that, as the boss, it might just be part of our job to tell people to do things.

Ha! No, no, no, what were we thinking! We have to ASK people, of course! I mean, what kind of moron thinks that just because he has a billion things to coordinate and dozens of deadlines, and just because he has a load of underlings who seem to prefer to scratch their arses and play WoW all day while people are waiting for them to communicate something, that he has a right to occasionally give the staff a gentle, yet well-deserved bollocking without them bursting into tears and quitting?

And what, I mean what people, kind of leader can REALLY function in an environment where people are constantly threatening to quit over the omission of a 'please' or 'thank you'?

Trouble is that leadership requires Te, and Te and democracy just don't get along. They're mutually exclusive, IMO. But it seems every damn office has to be a democratic commune these days ffs...

Can people please tell me just exactly how they expect a guy to get anything done whilst constantly stopping to consult everyone as to their job satisfaction, whether they feel they have 'ownership' of the projects they're involved in, and when you're not allowed to simply take it as read that something being part of someone's job description means they're sorta duty bound to do it, without you having to consult them to see if they mind every time before you tell them to do it?

People have a reaction to authority, some people despise it, some people naturally obey it, most are somewhere between the two extremes, it's using your authority effectively that you have to master in my opinion, and even for someone good at coordinating that is a learned skill, it doesn't come naturally for most.

I have ran groups, organizations, clubs, technical teams, programming teams, open source programming teams, forums, technical teams, and two IRC networks, among other things. (Not to brag, just citing my experiences, ymmv if you are in another area).

I use an escalating tiered system...

1) Ask nicely
2) Take them aside and explain why it is important, make sure they're alright
3) Give them a firm order that has no malice
4) Give them a firm order with threat of retribution
5) Fire them, revoke their power, kick them off the team, whatever.

Consistency is important. If people know what to expect from you it's easier for them to adjust themselves. Over time you'll learn what people need to motivate them. Most people will obey you with (1) if they respect your authority, with sometimes falling to (2) if they're feeling bad. Some people always need to feel they're important and need (2), these people generally should be tolerated if they're good at what they do, but not in an extreme. IE: use (2) once a week, use (3) the rest of the time an expect them to just do their job, you validate them and don't spend all your time coddling them. Some people consistently need firm orders or they won't work, they don't care about other people but have an intrinsic fear of authority. Some people need (4) because they don't fear authority but need to be reminded that authority has something they need. Some people are not fit to be part of your team. Fire them.

These are my opinions.

Edit: Another thing - nicely is subjective. Generally I don't use "Please" and "thank you", I express gratitude towards my people for extra work through other means, often this is rewards or just thanking them all at once in a massive way. As long as there is an understanding that you are asking them nicely between yourself and them, the word "please" shouldn't be necessary. In my case, most of my ask nicely things are stated as orders, but generally everyone who is on my team understands if they disagree or have an opinion in most cases I welcome them to speak up, it's just easier to say "Do this" than "Do this please, unless you have an objection or better idea, in which case please bring it up and as long as this isn't an urgent matter we can discuss it *hug*".

Edit 2: Also, I have no issues working with Fs, I just try to spend a little bit of time every once in awhile petting their emotions and letting them know they're valued, as well as when they first start making sure they understand that when I give orders nicely I don't mean to be curt, I just am usually in a hurry, once they understand this and we have developed at least a slight rapport they generally are more willing and some of the best workers since they know you appreciate them.

 

[substitute]

1) Ask nicely
2) Take them aside and explain why it is important, make sure they're alright
3) Give them a firm order that has no malice
4) Give them a firm order with threat of retribution
5) Fire them, revoke their power, kick them off the team, whatever.

Yeah, a man after my own heart then, that's exactly what I do, except that in between 4 and 5 comes the 'impassioned plea', my last attempt to make them see reason and stuff, where I detail to them the effects of their actions both on themselves, other colleagues, on me, the company, and everything generally, and let them know in no uncertain terms that this is their absolute final warning.

The rest of what you say is again, pretty much in line with my practice. The OP here was, as the second post said, a rant basically. It was the product of me having reached that final stage and just being pissed off about it, frustrated etc., but the second post was more what I wanted for this thread... haha... it still worked I guess, cos though it sorta became all about pro's and con's, attacks on and defenses of my personal leadership style, it has been enlightening...

 

[ygolo]

Yeah, a man after my own heart then, that's exactly what I do, except that in between 4 and 5 comes the 'impassioned plea', my last attempt to make them see reason and stuff, where I detail to them the effects of their actions both on themselves, other colleagues, on me, the company, and everything generally, and let them know in no uncertain terms that this is their absolute final warning.

The rest of what you say is again, pretty much in line with my practice. The OP here was, as the second post said, a rant basically. It was the product of me having reached that final stage and just being pissed off about it, frustrated etc., but the second post was more what I wanted for this thread... haha... it still worked I guess, cos though it sorta became all about pro's and con's, attacks on and defenses of my personal leadership style, it has been enlightening...

I am curious. What made you decide to turn your organization into the "land of misfit toys" in the first place?

 

[Park]

Hold on a minute, by the time it gets to that phase it's only after I've done loads of other stuff and tried my best over a period of time to resolve the situation. But I was talking specifically about a situation where it had already gone past that point. I wasn't asking "what do you do the minute an employee shows any fault?" but "what do you do when they've consistently, over a period of time, proven themselves to be completely imcompetent and resistant to all efforts and sorthing things out, abusing second chances?" In which case it seems that you're saying "keep them on anyway because it's your fault that they're useless"...??

And besides, that method is good at solving the problem. It solves my problem anyway - gets rid of the useless person and the chaos they cause. Whether that upsets them is, frankly, their problem. And it has worked for me and my business for many years. And if I were as draconian as you're painting me there, then how come I have managed to retain quite a few members of staff (losing only 3 in 14 years, none of which were due to my leadership 'failings' but as mentioned before, emmigration and THEIR dishonesty) as well as a reputation for being nice to work for?

I suppose you're going to say it was up to me to create an environment of trust and respect and that the employee I fired for trying to steal large amounts of money from the company and fiddle his hours sheet, wouldn't have done it if I'd been a better leader, and that I failed to motivate him to not be a thieving bastard?

But meh, it seems you've already got me boxed for some reason and judged. And I know better than to argue with an INTP who's made their mind up

Eh, I got you boxed and judged? Take a step back and look at how much you just managed to project on to me based on 3 lines. As for the part of your post I marked with bold. I don't get it, you seem to be asking a question to which you allready have the answer?

As I said before, I really have no idea whether you'r a good leader or not and the perception of good leadership varies from work culture to work culture.

Let's see... current staff (excluding the ones at issue) include: 2xENTJ, ENTP, INTJ (long term co-bosses, with me at the top), ESTJ, ISTJ and ISTP (long-term minions). The people here at issue are the noobs: ESFJ and ISFP and the pro's: ESFJ and ENFJ.

However, as you said yourself, the above does indicate that you may be poorly skilled when it comes to handling a non-homogeneous group of people with T/F being your main problem. I do wonder about one thing though. You did claim to have a "genuine desire for discussion as to differing expectations of leaders and preferences for styles of leadership, both from those who lead and those who work under them". However, you seem to have no desire to improve in your co-work with F types though. In your opinion, all 4 of them are pretty much useless and you have 14 years of leadership experience plus lots of people telling you you'r a great boss. Perhaps I'm being overly practical for an INTP but what do you wish to obtain with the knowledge you might gain in this debate?

 

[substitute]

Eh, I got you boxed and judged? Take a step back and look at how much you just managed to project on to me based on 3 lines. As for the part of your post I marked with bold. I don't get it, you seem to be asking a question to which you allready have the answer?

I didn't have the answer at the time I wrote the OP. But besides, that was the answer as to what I do, but what I wanted to know was what other people do. What I got was other people telling me what I should do - which is all good, still.

Maybe I did take what you said a tad too personally... my 'stepping back' faculties are compromised somewhat at the moment, I guess, due to... well, other stuff. I'm a bit all over the place.

Perhaps I'm being overly practical for an INTP but what do you wish to obtain with the knowledge you might gain in this debate?

That was the knowledge I gained in this debate

But no you're right, I didn't realise that you were addressing my deficiencies in leading F types in particular, I thought you were just insinuating that I was all-round rubbish, which was why I got a bit snarky.

Yeah I admit (now that I just realised in the course of this thread) that I do have a lack of skills when it comes to working with F's, though I have no problem with them in my personal life and usually get on well with them, it seems there are fundamental differences that make for trouble when it comes to professional relationships. I do plan to work on that and think about it, but in the meantime I plan to not take on any more people like that until I feel confident that I've got a better strategy of how to deal with them.

Though, given the strategies suggested here, I don't think I ever really can deal with them - at least not happily, and I'm not sure I want to... a feeling that's probably mutual.

I am curious. What made you decide to turn your organization into the "land of misfit toys" in the first place?

Haha... it's not like it was a conscious decision! And I wouldn't say it was quite the land of them, more a land where they're sorta given a chance among a non-misfit majority. That is, actually the majority are people who were misfits but managed to learn to adapt and cope with the 'real world out there' before I started working with them, though obviously there's still the 'tang' of eccentrism, an undercurrent of it generally. I personally think it does us a lot of good... just sometimes you get someone who you can overestimate how much they've learned to adapt and figure, you'll give them a chance, but then later regret it when you learn the full extent of their basket-case-ness!

 

[developer]

As an ENTJ-influenced ENTP who finds himself in charge of lots of people quite often along with his ENTJ colleagues, we often seem to find ourselves being put up against the wall and shot by the 'nice squad' for daring to think that, as the boss, it might just be part of our job to tell people to do things.

Ha! No, no, no, what were we thinking! We have to ASK people, of course! I mean, what kind of moron thinks that just because he has a billion things to coordinate and dozens of deadlines, and just because he has a load of underlings who seem to prefer to scratch their arses and play WoW all day while people are waiting for them to communicate something, that he has a right to occasionally give the staff a gentle, yet well-deserved bollocking without them bursting into tears and quitting?

And what, I mean what people, kind of leader can REALLY function in an environment where people are constantly threatening to quit over the omission of a 'please' or 'thank you'?

Trouble is that leadership requires Te, and Te and democracy just don't get along. They're mutually exclusive, IMO. But it seems every damn office has to be a democratic commune these days ffs...

Can people please tell me just exactly how they expect a guy to get anything done whilst constantly stopping to consult everyone as to their job satisfaction, whether they feel they have 'ownership' of the projects they're involved in, and when you're not allowed to simply take it as read that something being part of someone's job description means they're sorta duty bound to do it, without you having to consult them to see if they mind every time before you tell them to do it?

Welcome to leadership in the 21st century - nobody said it was easy. Much of it is about having the right people on board. Get the morons out of your team and visibly support the performers.

Apart from that, Heero said it all in his 5 step approach.