INTJ Leaders

According to the Myers-Briggs Personality Test I am an INTJ (Introverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, and Judging).  Out of the 16 personality types the test comes up with, INTJ is one of the rarest, with only 1-4% of the population exhibiting these characteristics.  Positively known as the “Scientist,” INTJs typically choose careers in the sciences and engineering, but can be found in all areas of academia where a combination of intelligence and incisiveness are required.  INTJs rise to managerial positions, but they are not the typical idea of what a “leader” should be.

Because of their introversion, INTJs tend to come off as quiet and reserved, preferring interactions with a few close friends over a large group of people.  Combined with an affinity for intuition, INTJs constantly gather observations on the world and making associations with it, drawing connections which may not be obvious to others.  Quick to understand new ideas, INTJs are more focused on applying concepts than understanding the intricate meaning behind something.  INTJs are noted for their preference of thinking over feeling.  Valuing the common good over personal problems, logic is more heavily employed during decision making than social considerations.  These decisions are made early, since INTJs as judging also plan their activities meticulously and thrive on control through predictability.

So who are these INTJs?  Well…

True, a less flattering term often applied to this personality type is “Mastermind.”  Rational Masterminds, primarily associated with INTJs, are reluctant but capable leaders who are very sure of themselves.  Direct and to the point, pragmatic almost to a fault, and willing to do whatever it takes to see that a goal is accomplished, Masterminds have commonly been associated as diabolical manipulators.  While this may be true of certain fictional villains who exhibit the traits of an Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging type, there are other leaders in history who have been identified as INTJs.  They include:

• Hannibal - Carthaginian general considered to be one of the greatest military commanders in history
• Augustus Caesar - first emperor of the Roman Empire
• Thomas Jefferson - third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence
• James Polk - eleventh president of the United States and instigator of the Mexican-American War
• Chester Arthur - twenty-first president of the United States and creator of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act
• Susan B Anthony - prominent American suffragette
• Woodrow Wilson - twenty-eighth president of the United States and delegate at the Paris Peace Conference
• Calvin Coolidge - thirtieth president of the United States during the Roaring Twenties
• John F Kennedy - thirty-fifth president of the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis
• Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford
• Michael Dukakis - 1988 Democratic presidential candidate
• Rudy Guiliani - former mayor of New York City
• Colin Powell - former four-star general and Secretary of State under George W Bush
• Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State under Barack Obama
• Michelle Obama - First Lady and advocate for poverty awareness, nutrition, and healthy eating

As shown by this diverse list, INTJs can be found in all facets of society and have accomplished great things, from crossing the Alps on elephants to founding a nation.

When dealing with individuals in an organization it is important to realize that different personality types will react to situations in differing manners.  Managers who are INTJs will be less likely to empathize and respond with sympathy to their colleagues’ problems.  They will also work better in small groups and with like-minded people.  Jobs requiring creativity will be more pleasing to an INTJ worker, as well as those that require analytical thinking.  When placed in a stressful situation, INTJs will focus on minute details, a strategy which is not coherent with their usual big-picture thinking.  Many people have a hard time understanding a person exhibiting INTJ characteristics.  They are seen as aloof, rigid, set in their ways, and are not prone to praising someone’s success.  This is not necessarily true, but understanding that a person does not respond in the same way as yourself is important when looking into how an organization successfully functions.

Myers-Briggs Personality Tests are easy, self-administered tests which can help a person to explore the unique aspects of their personality.  Leaders are representative of all sixteen personality types and each trait has the potential to be used effectively in a managerial capacity.  By understanding each type it will be easier for people to work together in a group.

Bibliography

"INTJ Profile." INTJ Profile.
"INTj Uncovered." INTj Uncovered.
"More About Personality Type." More About Personality Type.
"Portrait of an INTJ - Introverted INtuitive Thinking Judging(Introverted Intuition with Extraverted Thinking)." Portrait of an INTJ.

Leading in a Crisis

Since the economic downturn which has plagued businesses and organizations over the last few years, companies have had to learn to cope with crises on a larger scale.  A common mistake that many managers attempt is a temporary fix, or hunkering down.  While this might fix short term problems, not dealing with the larger issue at hand will only hurt the organization in the long run.  Luckily, there are practices in place which can aid managers in dealing with long-term crises—namely, adaptive leadership.  Adaptive leaders do not merely do quick fixes to solve the immediate problem, but also use the current situation to reorganize the company by changing the key rules of the game, reshaping parts of the organization, and redefining the work that people do.

However, before any of this may occur, it is imperative for the leadership to ensure that the crisis has been properly managed.  When dealing with a crisis, it is common to go through the following five steps:

1) Sense-making: immediately following the crisis, determining "what the hell just happened"
2) Decision-making: deciding what needs to be done
3) Meaning-making: trying to understand the crisis within a larger context
4) Learning: knowing what to do for the next time something similar happens
5) Termination: closure

When dealing with a crisis, it is also important to consider what part of the organization’s identity must be preserved and what must be trimmed to ensure progress.  An evaluation of the organization’s values, motives, and goals will aid with the reconstruction and will also help the process move towards a workable future.

As a manager, personal reactions to the crisis at hand will become influential for how others perceive the change.  For example, a delicate balance exists between serenity and discord: change is not forthcoming without a sense of urgency, but if too much negative stress is present then progress is hindered.  The manager must work to depersonalize conflict so that conversations are focused on issues and perspectives rather than the individual parties offering their opinions.  Taking a tip from politics, to get to the heart of the matter a manager must also look into the repercussions and effects the situation is having on their people.  Because of the stress and pressure inflicted on members of the organization, managers also need to create an atmosphere that welcomes discussions on difficult topics; otherwise, people with insightful ideas that run contrary to public opinion will be too afraid to voice their opinions and essential progress will be halted.

Another important aspect to consider when dealing with a crisis is the importance of opening up communication and encouraging people to produce solutions to the problem at hand.  One avenue of doing this is to seek the opinions of people different from you.  By engaging a wide spectrum of ideas which may not be apparent to you due to differences in experiences and views, you are increasing the chances of arriving at an agreeable solution to the crisis.

As a manager in the throes of a crisis, there are a number of methods to employ which will improve your leadership.  By giving yourself permission to be optimistic as well as realistic, your attitude will create a healthy, yet tense dichotomy between the viewpoints.  Exploiting this tension will keep your optimism from turning into denial of the crisis and your realism will not become clear cynicism.  Also, finding a sanctuary to reflect on what is going on will help to rejuvenate your outlook.  Reaching out to people not associated with the crisis will reduce the stress placed on your own shoulders.  These confidantes should be sympathetic to you, not necessarily to the issues at hand.  Rehashing what is happening, discussing possible alternatives, and unloading the stresses of the day to the confidante will allow you to straighten things out in your mind, as well as get you thinking about the reasons for your actions thus far.  Additionally, displaying emotions at the workplace can be an effective tool, but only if it is balanced with poise.  By bringing out more of your emotional self, you are letting people know that the situation is indeed fraught with feelings, but it is not out of control.  Finally, do not focus so much on your role in the crisis that you lose yourself in the process.  If this happens and the crisis passes, you will be vulnerable if your single focus is suddenly gone.  And single-mindedness when it comes to tasks can be harmful as it closes you off for other opportunities.

Crises can happen—and will happen—to anybody.  While they may range from a small change in the organization to a colossal disaster, it is important to retain control over the situation.  By following the previous steps and tips, managers can successfully navigate through the troubles and, hopefully, be prepared if the situation ever arises again.  As Dr. Maxwell Maltz once remarked, “Close scrutiny will show that most ‘crisis situations’ are opportunities to either advance, or stay where you are.”

Bibliography
Heifetz, Ronald, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky. "Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis."Harvard Business Review (2009): 62-69.
Nelson, Debra L., and James C. Quick. ORGB. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011.

Stress and Locus of Control

There are many factors in the workplace that work against productivity.  One of the major, multi-faceted problems faced is that of stress.  While there are some beneficial kinds of stress—the eustress, or “euphoria and stress,” that motivates some people when in a challenging or difficult situation—stress can ultimately cause unneeded and unwarranted damage.

The effect of work and non-work demands on employees can result in a stressful environment which lies host to a whole new set of problems.  Stress has been proven to lead to health problems and worker dissatisfaction—problems that can severely hinder the organization’s goals.  Stress manifests itself physiologically by redirecting blood to the brain and large-muscle groups, increasing alertness through improved sensory processes, releasing glucose and fatty acids into the blood-stream, and suppressing the immune system as well as restorative and emergent processes.  This produces an overall need to either fight or flee the situation, and since a workplace is not the proper venue for either option, employees find themselves stifled.  By evaluating the causes, or stressors, managers can work to effectively combat the source of stress.  The most common types of stressors are listed below:

Work Demands
Task Demands	Role Demands
Change Lack of control Career progress New technologies Temporal pressure	Role conflict Role ambiguity
Interpersonal Demands	Physical Demands
Emotional toxins Sexual harassment Poor leadership	Extreme environments Strenuous activities Hazardous substances Global travel
Non-work Demands
Home Demands	Personal Demands
Family expectations Child-rearing/day care arrangements Parental care	Workaholism Civic and volunteer work Traumatic events

Methods of understanding stress comprise of four different approaches:

• ·       Homeostatic/Medical Approach: developed by Walter B. Cannon, this approach argues that stress is rooted in the “fighting emotions” and the popular fight-or-flight responses.  According to this theory, stress occurs when some outside force upsets an individual’s homeostasis.
• ·         Cognitive Appraisal Approach: Richard Lazarus focuses on the psychology of stress and how a person’s interaction with the environment is the reason behind stress.  However, unlike Cannon, Lazarus states that it is the person’s perception and not what is causing the stress which he or she deems to be stressful.  This accounts for why one person may not be affected by something another person is stressed by.
• ·         Person-Environment Fit Approach: the social psychology of stress was conceived by Robert Kahn who believed that when a person’s role in society is producing confusing or conflicting signals then stressors are released.
• ·         Psychoanalytic Approach: working with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, Henry Levinson claims that a person’s ego-ideal (the embodiment of a person’s perfect self) and self-image (how a person really sees themselves) lead to stress when there is a discrepancy between the two images.  The bigger the discrepancy the more the person will be stressed.

In order to combat stress in a work environment, managers can employ several levels of intervention.  The primary method of intervention is proactive which aims to help people already free of stress to continue what they are doing without releasing new stressors into the environment.  The second intervention method is ameliorative which modifies responses to stressors, ie, giving tools to employees to effectively control stressful situations.  Lastly, tertiary intervention is reactive as it minimizes the reoccurrence of stress that has already transpired.  By combining these three ways of fighting stress in the workplace managers can produce an environment that is easy and productive for others to work in.

Dr. Roohangiz Karimi and Dr. Farhad Alipour maintain that an individual’s locus of control—the generalized belief that external factors are not as crucial as internal factors—is the most fundamental element in the reduction of workplace stress.  For role demands, like role ambiguity and role conflict, which constitute a great deal of stress, an individual’s locus of control helps to maintain equilibrium.  Managers who provide comprehensible objectives and clearly lay out the responsibilities and duties of the role will decrease occupational stress.  A manager can also help to promote a good locus of control in their employees through promotions based on the individual’s merits, ensuring job satisfaction, keeping self-esteem healthy, elevating salaries, and generally increasing the quality of life in the organization.  Workers who report a high locus of control have also been found to be more medically healthy, leading to the overall benefits of creating an environment free of stress.

Differentiating the fact that having an internal locus of control is more valuable than an external locus of control is also worthy of note.  People who have an external locus of control are more likely to belief that outside factors like fate, chance, luck, managers, and other people are responsible for their successes or failures.  Those with an internal locus of control are more likely to cope well with stressful situations as they take ownership for the events they find themselves in.

Stress comes from many different avenues and seems to be an unavoidable part of working in an organization.  Whether work or non-work related, stressors can crop up and negatively affect the workplace.  However, by properly identifying the causes of stress, managers can work towards correcting the situations.  Also, implementing the three forms of intervention can control preexisting stress as well as prevent future distress.  Finally, recognizing that locus of control—especially internal locus of control—aides in determining how different people will react to stressful situations will help managers in an organization to deal with stress.

Bibliography

Karimi, Roohangiz, and Alipour, Farhad.  “Reduce Job Stress in Organizations: Role of Locus of Control.”  International Journal of Business and Social Science 2.18 (2011): 232-237.

Nelson, Debra L., and James C. Quick. ORGB. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011.

The Measure of Happiness

How can someone measure happiness?  Can it even be measured?  What can we use to measure happiness?  Over hundreds of centuries philosophers have attempted to define the concept of “happiness” and to also locate its source.  Aristotle came close when he revealed that “happiness is the purpose of life, and living in accordance with one’s virtues is how to achieve happiness.”

Aristotle seemed to be on the right track, for a group of psychologists in the United States and Switzerland conducted a survey asking participants to rank characteristics linked to life satisfaction.  The US sample was comprised of over 12,000 people who completed the survey on http://www.authentichappiness.com between September 2002 and December 2005.  The Swiss group, while smaller (less than 500), participated by handing in written surveys that were arbitrarily given to random people.  The findings indicate that both groups ranked love, hope, curiosity, and zest as their top responses.  Not all the rankings were universal, however, as the graph below indicates:

This discrepancy in how Americans and the Swiss view aspects of happiness is indicative of how the characteristics of different cultures plays a key role in how individuals will try to attain happiness.  Americans operate in a highly individualistic environment, which proves to be different from the more collectively-minded countries like Hungary and Switzerland.  If working with people from a different cultural background from you, it is important to keep these thoughts in mind, otherwise the goals and attitudes of those involved will be greatly at odds.

It was uncovered that there are some universalities in the pursuit of happiness, however.  Those that go to Marquette are already knowledgeable about the Jesuit tradition of serving others.  What is interesting is that the traits that are associated with a meaningful life scored highest on both the tests given in the United States as well as in Switzerland.  The next highest group to be scored were the traits characterized as engaging.  Pleasurable traits were the last to be ranked, distinctly at odds with the hedonistic lifestyle that is so heavily advertised in today’s society.

But can happiness really be measured?  The stats given to support these findings cannot be presumed to represent everyone in the two countries.  The participants were all volunteers with an average age of correspondent well into their adult years and females overwhelmingly were represented.  So what is fulfilling for someone of 40 or 50 might not be wholly representative of what I find to be a source of happiness.  For me, I experience happiness in a number of different ways: napping in the sun, reading a book for pleasure alone, singing in the car (poorly), telling someone a historical anecdote I find to be amusing, watching childhood cartoons with friends, or making macramé owls.  While I would not call these hedonistic pursuits per se, they do emerge as a result of the maximization of pleasure and, selfish person that I am, do not result in a meaningful life.  Even if my macramé owls do bring me immeasurable joy.

Even in that vein, when I am at my happiest I do not expect others to illicit that much pleasure from what I am doing.  For example, while I may get a kick out of telling the story of William Fitzwilliam to my flatmates, they may not be as interested in it as I am.  And they are certainly not going to go around telling historic facts to their friends.  So my idea of happiness is not representative of all 21 year old college students, just as the results of the findings do not indicate the goals I find to be most compatible with attaining happiness.

What is important for businesses to uncover—and why the findings of the surveys are so important—is whether the goals of an organization match up with their employees’ ideas of happiness.  Job satisfaction is imperative for a business to run smoothly and if someone does not see the business fulfilling their needs or making them happy then they will not perform to the best of their abilities.  For this reason, non-profit organizations have the advantage since they—more often times than for-profit companies—are providing jobs that perform meaningful tasks.  An employee working for Teach for America, for example, will undoubtedly feel much better about their job than a worker for a big oil company.

By aligning values of a company to appeal to the motivations of the workers, organizations can succeed in creating a work environment for people to thrive in since their needs are being met.  When employees feel they are truly making a difference then they will remain happy in their jobs and perform with enthusiasm, enhancing their organizational commitment.  They will not fall prey to continuance or normative commitments but instead feel a desire to remain at their jobs since they genuinely want to be there.  It will also benefit the company to keep their employees happy, as dissatisfied workers report more psychological and medical problems than their satisfied counterparts.  Values, goals, and happiness attributes must remain in sync for an organization to function well.

Bibliography

Nelson, Debra L., and James C. Quick. ORGB. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011.

Peterson, Christopher, Willibald Ruch, Ursula Beermann, Nansook Park, and Martin E. P. Seligman. "Strengths of Character, Orientations to Happiness, and Life Satisfaction." The Journal of Positive Psychology2.3 (2007): 149-56.

Ethics in the Workplace

Just as Calvin is discussing with Hobbes the merits and pitfalls of compromising one’s ethics to succeed in life, Ann De Graff and Joost Levy proclaim that the simple act of opening a dialogue about ethics is perhaps more important than the ultimate decision reached.  The topic of ethical behavior is dangerous since many people will either succumb to the other person’s point of view to put an end to the discussion or the two sides will fail to concede to any point and the dialogue will amount to nothing.  The arrival of the 21^st century has brought many issues to light, and, as Calvin so brilliantly points out, “In the real world, people care about success, not principles.  Then again, maybe that’s why the world is in such a mess.  What a dilemma!” So what can an organization hope to learn from considering the point ethics play in everyday life?

Case in point: in 1995 the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum made plans to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.  The exhibit was called The Crossroads: The End of World War II, the Atomic Bomb and the Cold War and would center around the fuselage of the Enola Gay, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber that dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima.  Immediately, protesters from the American Legion and the Air Force Association stirred up controversy, accusing the Smithsonian of placing too much emphasis on the destruction of the Japanese city and not taking into account the WWII veterans and how beneficial the decision was.  Feeling it was an attempt to disparage those that were involved in the bombings, numerous veteran groups rallied against the exhibit.  With enough negative attention focused on the exhibit, the Smithsonian decided to cancel the proposed project. The controversy also prompted the Air and Space Museum Director, Martin Harwit, to resign.

The museum’s decision to retract the exhibit, and whether it can be viewed as ethically right or wrong to present a war exhibit as anything less than jingoistic, was a way for the Smithsonian to save face.  True, they were met with heckling from groups who felt that showcasing a war for all its atrocities was justified, they were ultimately defeated by the politically stronger organizations that felt the exhibit was an affront to World War II veterans.

Organizations will face dilemmas when determining what action is morally right or wrong.  De Graff and Levy maintain that every organization will have at least three ethically loaded dilemmas when considering courses of action.  They are:

     1) The dilemma of time: short-term versus long-term interventions cause time blindness; this results in seeing something as an answer for today and not what will be affected in the long-term as a result.
     2) The dilemma of interest: personal interest versus group interest causes relational blindness; seeing the cause-and-effect as only pertaining to one’s organization is flawed as everything is connected to the whole.
     3) The dilemma of scope: a limited, clear scope versus a wide, more complete and complex scope causes spatial blindness; while organizations may see parts of a system they are unable or unwilling to piece it together as a whole.

In order for organizations to flourish, they need to be able to ask—and expect ongoing debate—the question of “Whatever I do, is it good for us, is it good for others, and is it good for the greater good?”  If careful thought is given to the answers of this question, then an important ethical question can be discussed in a meaningful way.  Integration of the three kinds of ethics—egoistic ethics (consideration for the self is both the first and last priority), mutualistic ethics (giving as much as is being received), and altruistic ethics (giving and expecting nothing in return)—will result in a thought-provoking discussion resulting in a decision not hastily made towards a delicate question.

While the topic of ethics in the workplace is generally limited to an individual’s behavior (ie, stealing, lying, abuse, etc.) there can, and often are, ethical dilemmas faced by the organization as a whole.  Properly identifying these instances and opening a thoughtful dialogue is the first step and, regardless of whether or not a decision is reached, the mere thought of attention being paid to such an unpopular topic is a victory in and of itself.  As to the question of solving the ethical problem, there are ways in which organizations can weigh the options and reach a reasonable conclusion.  For the most part this consists of answering the question of who will benefit from a proposed solution and how it will affect people not directly associated with the process.  If enough organizations can put the subject of ethics into their business practices then perhaps we can avoid the fate that Calvin has pinpointed.

Bibliography

De Graff, Ann, and Joost Levy. "Business as Usual?: Ethics in the Fast-Changing and Complex World of Organizations." Transactional Analysis Journal 41.2 (2011): 123-28.

Nelson, Debra L., and James C. Quick. ORGB. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011.

"The Enola Gay Controversy - About - Overview." History on Trial http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/enola/>.