[MBTI General] N v. S

[ptgatsby]

Product Marketing is dominated by Ns.

I don't actually disagree, as I'm not sure - the only reference I remember is that the two most dominant axises are extroversion and perception. That does, however, make me question 'the most important factor' bit, even within this narrow scope.

Need people there to deal with limited structure, create original marketing ideas, and pay close attention to the outside world by monitoring the competition. Product Development is dominated by Ss. Need people there to make sure developers hit deadlines, that the product works as advertised, and pay no attention to the outside world because they're so focused on getting a great product out the door.

You just described deadlines, tangibility and focus as S traits, while associating creativity and large picture viewing with Ns. IOW, you just described a mix of S and J traits with N and P traits, at best... the main focus is on the J/P portions.

What happens if you put one into the wrong place is that they'll end up doing the other's job. Been doing this long enough to see it happens many times. No other factor - schooling, intelligence, college major - better predicts the right fit than the N-S indicator.

Perhaps with product development or marketing in particular because this is not the case in general.

Also very silly to claim it's prejudice. This business is filled with Indians, women, SE Asians, West Africans, WASPs, Russians, Israelis, Brits, you name it. Being an N or an S doesn't predict whether you can contribute to the company, but it does tell where you're most likely to be successful.

Not a claim, but an open ended statement. Since you are not using the system and placing according to it, it is only your biases that are a factor - that I don't worry about.

It wouldn't matter how multicultural the company is - if it does something, it does it, and if they use the system in a prejudiced manner, then they are predjudiced. You have use a lot of blanket statements in your posts above this one, and so I would say that your thinking is prejudiced - that is, you have prejudged a person's capabilities not on the demonstration of them, but based on your general rule of thumb of a person's type.

However, that is for you to wrestle on - it's not a slight, we all do this to some degree. It's when it turns into giving the test and deciding based on it that you would be in a breach of ethics.

N/S doesn't explain everything, so you have to be able to identify situations where it won't help, but it's simply a better predictor of job performance than any other measure that's out there

No, it's not. This is an artifact of IQ distribution inside N - essentially distilling IQ to magnify the effect. It is literally the IQ component in N that is giving you that impression - remove IQ, and it's non-predictive (or generally close to in systems that use distributions.)

 

[ptgatsby]

You're not the only one. They mostly use her to make things more efficient and listen to her when she says that changes are needed. She's also up for a management position. Now, truth be told, that she isn't a very strong I and she does work well with other women apparently.

That's not unusual - INTJs are the most over-represented type in management (the higher you go, the more they are, too!) ENTJs don't even come close - it's the particular mindset of an INTJ that does it. Keep in mind, however, that while INTJs are related to management positions, they still make up a minority of the positions.

 

[Cimarron]

An example of a much poorer stereotype would be the S - 66% of the population, even along a single axis of measurement, is so broad that it loses significant meaning. On the other hand, 33% of Ns is well defined, not surprisingly, because they don't even pass through average scores (guesstimate about 0.5 std dev above norm?), while Ss do... So Ns gain a smaller (25-33%) division and a narrow definition (scoring above 66-75% of the population on this axis)... and likewise, Ss gain no practical division (66-75% of the population) and no practical definition (constituting only the removal of part of the population that would be at the outer edges of this trait - have all normals and stronger traits in a large population sample).

See, I was thinking about that recently, the statistics. Though I'm horrible at statistics--seriously.

 

[Domino]

Look - if I were to pick a type that's done the most damage to me (and my sister) over the years, it's ISTJs, hands-down. HOWEVER, I don't blame all ISTJs for this, I don't hate them, and I couldn't conscience blaming them as a group for what a few did. I don't understand broad sweeping disdain for a TYPE. Granted, there will always be one that you don't "get" or feel in sync with, but as to hating them ALL? That sounds exhausting. Plus, it rules out you ever enjoying the balanced individuals. For every ISTJ that's tried to mash me flat, there's been one to right the wrong and really prove how great human beings can be. That's not me being PC. It's just the facts.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

No, it's not. This is an artifact of IQ distribution inside N - essentially distilling IQ to magnify the effect. It is literally the IQ component in N that is giving you that impression - remove IQ, and it's non-predictive (or generally close to in systems that use distributions.)

Yes it is, I've looked at this across many companies, sorry if the results upset you. It's not absolute, but it's more predictive than any other factor and has nothing to do with IQ, because if you can observe skills and type, you don't need tests, you don't even need the 4 letters, you can figure it out based on choices people make, especially when they have to set daily priorities. What MBTI describes as ESTPs gravitate to sales engineering, STJs typically look at internal issues first, like which parts of the organization will be involved with project, while NTPs look at external issues first, like which companies will be competing for the same customers.

So let's say I want someone externally focused in product marketing, and pay no attention to the 4 letters, chances will be very good that person is more likely to show up an N than an S if you test them.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

It's when it turns into giving the test and deciding based on it that you would be in a breach of ethics.

But not as unethical as telling privately-owned companies what types of skills they have to hire for. You put out a job req. for someone with great organizational skills, you're essentially saying "give me a J". You put out another that says someone who's focused on high level strategy, but not day-to-day ops, you're essentially saying "give me an N". There's nothing to test, you can figure these things out quickly in an interview to determine if the person will be a fit.

I can see you like a lot of academic language, but in the practical world of business, most hiring managers know what kind of person they want for a job, and in many cases, the skills they list fit in very closely with traditional MBTI definitions.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

See, I was thinking about that recently, the statistics. Though I'm horrible at statistics--seriously.

The problem with looking at general population ratios is that in business, especially outside of sales, HR, and PR, T's are 80-90% of the workforce. Seen some successful F execs now and again, but compared to the general population, the Fs are underrepresented. Next issue in marketing particular is that I's are underrepresented, so you're down to a handful of types.

So what happens is that you're already down to a self-selected subset of the general population, which makes overall representation ratios less meaningful when trying to fill a particular role. If you put out a req for Product Mktg, you'll get mostly ENTP, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTJ, or ESTP. Give the job to a typical ESTP, and they'll start CHOOSING to do more customer demos than is being asked. Give it to an ENTP, and you'll get more competitive analysis than is being asked. An ESTJ will document and flow chart beautifully unprompted, while an ENTJ will outline his plan for world domination (kidding, lots of sensitive people here) But again, not all will do this according to type, but take away the letters and you get these common trends.

So if you want to find a good fit, you want to find someone who is naturally going to do what you what done most. Think the role needs more structure, then find someone who'll naturally want to document procedures. Want more competitive analysis, then find someone whose done it before unprompted. Same with customer demos. So you can forget all the MBTI letters, the distribution in the general population, but the key factors for success. Most often, in product marketing that's some combo of competitive analysis, strategy, and self-taught technology understanding. Ask for those skills, and you're far more likely to see a lot of Ns. It's that simple.

 

[Nonsensical]

I have had many of these experiences..I will use a reference in my point, and someone will interupt and take it literally, and elaborate on that exact reference to the point where the conversation is dead..it really bothers me sometimes, when I'm trying to say something important, or there is a serious situation, they will usually but in and elaborate on any single word I say..

 

[ptgatsby]

So let's say I want someone externally focused in product marketing, and pay no attention to the 4 letters, chances will be very good that person is more likely to show up an N than an S if you test them.

Not surprisingly, if you don't want/hire those that don't fit your stereotype, the remainder will fit the stereotype... I see this as imply begging the test. It says nothing about predictive ability or effectiveness.

Anyway, the point was that using the test was what was negative - I don't particularly care how much stereotyping you personally do, so long as you hire on ability and there turns out to be a correlation. What I say above is what I see the problem to be - I suspect your success comes from implementing change, and I don't belabor that at all.

But not as unethical as telling privately-owned companies what types of skills they have to hire for.

Isn't that what you do?

You put out a job req. for someone with great organizational skills, you're essentially saying "give me a J". You put out another that says someone who's focused on high level strategy, but not day-to-day ops, you're essentially saying "give me an N". There's nothing to test, you can figure these things out quickly in an interview to determine if the person will be a fit.

No, there is a large ethical difference between judging someone in an interview as a viable fit and stereotyping them based on preconceptions.

I can see you like a lot of academic language, but in the practical world of business, most hiring managers know what kind of person they want for a job, and in many cases, the skills they list fit in very closely with traditional MBTI definitions.

I'm not an academic. I've gone through MBTI being used formally at work, along with participation in the review board to see if it should be rolled out to people... This is virtually a repeat of why it wasn't used. MBTI, used as a crutch to stereotype, is dangerous.

 

[Jack Flak]

Look - if I were to pick a type that's done the most damage to me (and my sister) over the years, it's ISTJs, hands-down. HOWEVER, I don't blame all ISTJs for this, I don't hate them, and I couldn't conscience blaming them as a group for what a few did. I don't understand broad sweeping disdain for a TYPE. Granted, there will always be one that you don't "get" or feel in sync with, but as to hating them ALL? That sounds exhausting. Plus, it rules out you ever enjoying the balanced individuals. For every ISTJ that's tried to mash me flat, there's been one to right the wrong and really prove how great human beings can be. That's not me being PC. It's just the facts.

While reading this post, I think I discovered the theoretical foundation of why some Ns have more trouble getting along with SJs than whomever else. Oh, and forgive me, because I'm less PC than PP, even.

SJs, according to my function system, lead with T or F, which are, of course, judging functions, which means (for the novices' sakes) they make many and are very confident in their decisions, whether based on thinking or feeling.

Secondary to that is the preference for S over N, as all SJs have Sensing as a support function, which means...Well what's important that it means in this context is that they are less perceptive than N Primaries (NPs) and other Ns.

It leads to an axis of confidence in internal standards combined with a lack of understanding of why others have the position they do.

Eureka, I did it.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Isn't that what you do?

Uh, I'm paid by companies who choose to bring me in. You're really stretching it if you're trying to mix recommendations companies voluntarily pay for with mandatory regulations that cost them money.

I know "stereotype" has a nice holier-than-thou ring to it, and you and the other Ss offended by this thread keep resorting to it, but no successful business wants to put people in the wrong jobs in order to satisfy a few whiny finger pointers. I think the actual MBTI test is bs, and unnecessary, but the traits associated with each type give you a good idea of the skills needed for a certain job. Having been in technology for years, I've seen that as a matter of practice, an observed (not tested) ENTP from San Jose State is very likely to be a far better fit for a competitive analyst position than an observed ISTJ from Stanford. Similarly, an ISTJ from Chico State is very likely to be a better fit for an Accounting Manager than an ENTP from Stanford.


Very likely means 70 to 90% chance, so yes there are successful Ns in Acctounting and successful Ss is Strategy, but can't tell you how many times I've seen top school ESTJs get promoted and then struggle with strategic decisions, relying on textbook ideas and getting pounded by their bosses for "not seeing the bigger picture".

Most important thing for anyone is to have clear goals, regardless of whether they love MBTI or hate it. But an ENTP planning a career in Accounting or an ESTJ planning a career in Strategy will do best when they consciously acknowledge their approach will differ from the majority of people in their field.

 

[Amargith]

Uh, I'm paid by companies who choose to bring me in. You're really stretching it if you're trying to mix recommendations companies voluntarily pay for with mandatory regulations that cost them money.

I know "stereotype" has a nice holier-than-thou ring to it, and you and the other Ss offended by this thread keep resorting to it, but no successful business wants to put people in the wrong jobs in order to satisfy a few whiny finger pointers. I think the actual MBTI test is bs, and unnecessary, but the traits associated with each type give you a good idea of the skills needed for a certain job. Having been in technology for years, I've seen that as a matter of practice, an observed (not tested) ENTP from San Jose State is very likely to be a far better fit for a competitive analyst position than an observed ISTJ from Stanford. Similarly, an ISTJ from Chico State is very likely to be a better fit for an Accounting Manager than an ENTP from Stanford.


Very likely means 70 to 90% chance, so yes there are successful Ns in Acctounting and successful Ss is Strategy, but can't tell you how many times I've seen top school ESTJs get promoted and then struggle with strategic decisions, relying on textbook ideas and getting pounded by their bosses for "not seeing the bigger picture".

Most important thing for anyone is to have clear goals, regardless of whether they love MBTI or hate it. But an ENTP planning a career in Accounting or an ESTJ planning a career in Strategy will do best when they consciously acknowledge their approach will differ from the majority of people in their field.

Question: doesn't your bias towards the types you generally 'äppreciate' more, get in the way though? I see you mostly using T's as 'positive' example, for instance, athough that might be coincidence

 

[Nat]

Uh, I'm paid by companies who choose to bring me in. You're really stretching it if you're trying to mix recommendations companies voluntarily pay for with mandatory regulations that cost them money.

I know "stereotype" has a nice holier-than-thou ring to it, and you and the other Ss offended by this thread keep resorting to it, but no successful business wants to put people in the wrong jobs in order to satisfy a few whiny finger pointers. I think the actual MBTI test is bs, and unnecessary, but the traits associated with each type give you a good idea of the skills needed for a certain job. Having been in technology for years, I've seen that as a matter of practice, an observed (not tested) ENTP from San Jose State is very likely to be a far better fit for a competitive analyst position than an observed ISTJ from Stanford. Similarly, an ISTJ from Chico State is very likely to be a better fit for an Accounting Manager than an ENTP from Stanford.


Very likely means 70 to 90% chance, so yes there are successful Ns in Acctounting and successful Ss is Strategy, but can't tell you how many times I've seen top school ESTJs get promoted and then struggle with strategic decisions, relying on textbook ideas and getting pounded by their bosses for "not seeing the bigger picture".

Most important thing for anyone is to have clear goals, regardless of whether they love MBTI or hate it. But an ENTP planning a career in Accounting or an ESTJ planning a career in Strategy will do best when they consciously acknowledge their approach will differ from the majority of people in their field.

I work for a small consulting firm and we all took the test to supposedly "communicate better", however I do think they were using it for a purpose similar to what you're discussing because I was asked a whole string of questions in my job interview that would give an indication of type.

My bosses did admit there were certain types that they would not hire, of which we "luckily" did not have. At the time we had NFs, NTs and SJs. I guess that's a no to any SPs. From the conversation, it did seem that my bosses thought T was more desirable than F.... probably not surprising since we analyse business issues.

I know my profile says INFJ but I tested as an ENFJ. I'd be interested in knowing what type/types you think are suited for consulting.

 

[Kaizer]

Question: doesn't your bias towards the types you generally 'äppreciate' more, get in the way though? I see you mostly using T's as 'positive' example, for instance, athough that might be coincidence

type helps with likable (or appropriate in 'non-personal' interaction) ppl cause it helps with communication.. depth and overlap/interface etc
type doesn't determine who is good or bad
now if only more ppl were more aware of the roots and causes of personality traits

 

[Kaizer]

I know my profile says INFJ but I tested as ENFJ. I'd be interested in knowing what type/types you think are suited for consulting.

ENFJ in consulting = upper management sooner than most .... sample size 1

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

I work for a small consulting firm and we all took the test to supposedly "communicate better", however I do think they were using it for a purpose similar to what you're discussing because I was asked a whole string of questions in my job interview that would give an indication of type.

The current trend is not to use MBTI, but rather colors (implicitly based on MBTI) as a more politically correct way of providing communications workshops. So instead of four letters, they tell you're a "red", "green", or "blue".

My bosses did admit there were certain types that they would not hire, of which we "luckily" did not have. At the time we had NFs, NTs and SJs. I guess that's a no to any SPs. From the conversation, it did seem that my bosses thought T was more desirable than F.... probably not surprising since we analyse business issues.

Stunning, this is rare, usually firms don't like to discuss this. I've seen companies bias against Ps for disorganization and Fs for lack of ability with facts and figures, but I would never recommend they do this.

I know my profile says INFJ but I tested as an ENFJ. I'd be interested in knowing what type/types you think are suited for consulting.

Depends on the type of consulting. ENFJs are one the most common Fs in business, and generally get on well with the ENTXs who dominate strategic consulting firms, and can advance in these firms because their people skills are usually better than the ENTs. Often, the ENFJs have better business development skills than the ENTs, which is usually the most important skill required to advance in a larger consulting firm. But they also need a strategy to deal with the ENTs who are likely to be very well-informed and disrespecting of others who aren't. ENFJs are also outstanding in HR (not payroll or compensation, but HR strategy) consulting.

Anecdotally, I know an ENFJ who used to work for one of the brand name consultancies, and was extremely popular there, and was promoted quickly. She worked well with clients, everyone used to comment on how nice she was, and she came across as very "real", i.e. not having any sort of facade.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Question: doesn't your bias towards the types you generally 'äppreciate' more, get in the way though? I see you mostly using T's as 'positive' example, for instance, athough that might be coincidence

Only bias I have against ENFP is that my girlfriend is one.

I deal with the corporate world, which is very "T" heavy. That said, many of the best salespeople I've met are male Fs. Female Fs can be good at sales too, but they also get into HR and PR heavily, which tend to have far fewer guys than sales, F, T, or otherwise.

I know an ESFP woman who was a great marketing exec, and ENFJs are fairly common as sales execs. While there might be some good ISFs out there, never met one who was an effective business executive, although seen a few get promoted to mid-level jobs because of their personal relationships. George HW Bush is often listed as ISFx and he made money in oil, so it's not impossible for any type to succeed in business, but it is extremely rare to see an ISF running a company or large division.

 

[ptgatsby]

Uh, I'm paid by companies who choose to bring me in. You're really stretching it if you're trying to mix recommendations companies voluntarily pay for with mandatory regulations that cost them money.

What?

1) I said nothing about mandatory regulations, or regulations, or anything even close to that. You introduced this concept, and I don't see how it applied then, or now.

2) It's not relevant how you are brought in. Consultants can be hired by any firm, paid any amount, and use as effective or ineffective, be prejudiced or any other behavior involved. It does not make it an ethical use of a system for the consultant or the company.

All you are doing is crutching your biases in the system, which as I said, is fine by me. If you associate your pick-and-choose method with some personality matrix theory, then... so be it. I think it is ineffective, but everyone justifies their biases in some way. This one doesn't even fit on my radar anymore, given how bad I have seen it.

I know "stereotype" has a nice holier-than-thou ring to it, and you and the other Ss offended by this thread keep resorting to it, but no successful business wants to put people in the wrong jobs in order to satisfy a few whiny finger pointers.

Wow, good reversal on your behaviors. I've dealt with lots of consultants and so forth, and they only care about the problem in front of them... just as I know you don't care about false positives - you can eliminate most of the population unfairly and get the right person most of the time as a result... and that's what you are attempting to do. It's ok though, because you are simply introducing a hidden cost that you don't have to face because your success rate is high.

The only impact it has on me is that I don't get hired by people like you, despite being able to do the job, and likely better. I don't care because I know how it works in the big picture - you over emphasize traits that don't matter, thus absorbing workers on the wrong metrics, leaving gaps in the workforce that would be better at the job, where companies that do not do this will hire me. The correlation between them and being bigger and better companies with a higher pay scale is strong, leading to a better market for myself.

It's the standard economic situation of discrimination backfiring on the discriminator. The only reason I care here is because I have a strong aversion to mistaken stereotypes being perpetuated

Very likely means 70 to 90% chance, so yes there are successful Ns in Accounting

Accounting is overreprestend by Ns, by population. T and J are the dominant factors here. You are generally better off hiring an N given the T and the J are already present. Again, you conflate the wrong dimensions to a particular job class, and preferences against the wrong axis. *

The issue I have here is that you are constantly perpetuating stereotypes. Even though pointing these out, and other misconceptions, may seem like 'holier than...' to you, it's not. Holier than though is, perhaps, something you do need. I'm not terribly good at it though, especially if my past encounters with ENTPs here is used as a baseline.

*
Link here Red numbers are general population
Some research has used the MBTI to study personality profiles of accountants. The accounting firm of Ernst & Young reportedly has used Myers-Briggs for many years to develop profiles of their professional staff. A summary provided at a recent conference for accounting program administrators showed these results (courtesy of Thomas J. Frecka):

17% ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)11-14%
17% ESTJ (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)8-12%
12% ENTJ (Extraversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging)2-5%
9% INTJ (Introversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging)2-4%
Jacoby (1981) studied a sample of 333 accountants employed by public accounting firms in Washington, D.C. Jacoby found the following MBTI types in this sample:

19.8% ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)11-14%
13.8% ESTJ (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)8-12%
12.3% INTJ (Introversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging)2-4%

 

[Salomé]

Accounting is overreprestend by Ns, by population. T and J are the dominant factors here. You are generally better off hiring an N given the T and the J are already present. Again, you conflate the wrong dimensions to a particular job class, and preferences against the wrong axis. *
*
Link here Red numbers are general population
Some research has used the MBTI to study personality profiles of accountants. The accounting firm of Ernst & Young reportedly has used Myers-Briggs for many years to develop profiles of their professional staff. A summary provided at a recent conference for accounting program administrators showed these results (courtesy of Thomas J. Frecka):

17% ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)11-14%
17% ESTJ (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)8-12%
12% ENTJ (Extraversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging)2-5%
9% INTJ (Introversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging)2-4%
Jacoby (1981) studied a sample of 333 accountants employed by public accounting firms in Washington, D.C. Jacoby found the following MBTI types in this sample:

19.8% ISTJ (Introversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)11-14%
13.8% ESTJ (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judging)8-12%
12.3% INTJ (Introversion, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging)2-4%

Ha! I knew it. It's no place for an INTP, that's fer shure.

 

[proteanmix]

That was hot!