6. Appreciating and Benefiting from Communication Differences

While traveling by train some months ago, I overheard four people talking. Three of them were soft-spoken and reserved, while the fourth, an engaging and energetic conversationalist, spoke loudly and dominated the conversation. She earned a mention in this book when I heard her say to one of her companions: “You have a lot of ideas for such a quiet man.”

Have you ever fallen victim to this misconception—that a quiet person lacks ideas? It’s an easy mistake to make. After all, if a person has ideas, he or she would share them, right? Well, not necessarily.

Virginia Satir observed that we connect with one another based on our similarities and that we grow based on our differences. But for growth to take root, we must become aware of our differences. And for growth to thrive, we must appreciate, respect, and accommodate these differences.

Sadly, however, when we notice differences between ourselves and others—say, in how we communicate—one person being gregarious, for example, while another is reserved—we often judge those who are unlike us. At times, we find fault not only with their communication style, but also with the content of their communication. In the process, we associate traits with the person’s communication style that have nothing to do with that style, as the woman on the train did in associating verbosity with quantity of ideas. Yet such a connection is as farfetched as if the quiet fellow with the many ideas had assumed the woman to be empty-headed because she spoke so engagingly, energetically, and enthusiastically.

Our ability to accommodate communication differences, and indeed to benefit from them, can significantly affect our success in building a strong foundation. When forging relationships, carrying out projects, seeking buy-in, and selling ideas, communication differences can distance people as easily as they can bring them together. This chapter focuses on some key personality differences that are observable in how people communicate, when they communicate, and what they communicate about. An awareness of these differences can help you choose how to interact with others—and how you express what you need from them—so that you can work with them amicably and productively.

As you read this chapter, ask yourself: How can I take personal responsibility to accommodate these differences between myself and others? Can we discuss these differences, enjoy them, and use them for our mutual gain?

¹ The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator™ and MBTI™ are registered trademarks of Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.

² Note that I’m referring to the MBTI as an instrument or indicator, not as a test. The MBTI does not test people and provide a grade, but rather offers information that will help people to better understand themselves and others.

Taking the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is not a prerequisite to reading or understanding this chapter. Rather, this chapter is intended to help you notice differences in communication style so that you can use these observations to close or prevent communication gaps. This awareness can help you work more effectively with people with different communication preferences.

The MBTI focuses on four differences—called preferences, in MBTI language. A preference refers to a natural inclination: how you do things when you’re being yourself, rather than functioning in the manner that’s expected of you in your personal and professional relationships. It’s what is referred to as your “shoes off” self. These preferences focus on the following areas:

• Where you get your energy: a preference for introversion (I) or extraversion (E)³

³ This spelling of “Extravert” is not an error. In everyday English, it’s spelled “extrovert.” However, in this context of psychological type, it is spelled “Extravert.”

• How you take in data from the outer world: a preference for sensing (S) or intuition (N, since “I” is already in use for introversion)

• How you use that data to make decisions: a preference for thinking (T) or feeling (F)

• How you relate to the world: a preference for judging (J) or perceiving (P)

Combining these four categories yields sixteen possible types, or letter combinations—ISTJ, ENTP, INFJ, or ESFP, for example. Each letter indicates one aspect of an individual’s communication preference. Each preference influences and is influenced by the other three preferences; for example, although ESTJs and ENFPs are both Extraverts, what, when, and how they exhibit that quality will be influenced by the other three type indicators.

According to type theory, which derives from the work of the psychologist Carl Jung, psychological type is inborn.⁴ According to the premises of type theory, you are a certain type, although your upbringing and life experiences may steer you into behaving as another type. No type is better than any other. Each type has strengths and potential weaknesses, and any important work effort benefits from the participation of many types. The following sections describe how people of different types can communicate more effectively with others.

⁴ C.G. Jung, Psychological Types (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1923).

But don’t jump to the wrong conclusion. Both Extraverts and Introverts can talk your head off. And both need quiet time for reflection. The two differ, however, in where they get their energy, whether from other people or from inside themselves. Where the energy comes from can make a huge difference in communication style.

Extraverts get their energy from interacting with other people and tend to be more animated and expressive than Introverts. Introverts get their energy internally—much of their communication takes place within themselves, in a quiet and private place not accessible by others. Thus, they are often less talkative, less animated, and less expressive than their Extravert counterparts. Extraverts tend to enjoy talking, sometimes if only for the sake of talking; Introverts tend to talk when they have something to say.

In introducing types, I have deliberately used qualifiers such as “tend to,” “generally,” and “often” because two people of the same type can be dramatically different. It is essential to remember that we are all multidimensional, and are influenced by many factors in addition to our MBTI type.

Consider some of the key communication differences between Extraverts and Introverts. Extraverts gain energy from interacting. Many Es, after talking with people all day long, can still enjoy a large social gathering in the evening. Introverts, by contrast, lose energy from interaction. Talking—or even listening—for an extended period can deplete an I’s energy. Thus, whereas Extraverts enjoy being with lots of people, Introverts have a greater need for “cave time” and generally prefer conversing one-on-one or in small groups.

The E’s gain in energy and the I’s loss of energy are not consciously motivated. They are somehow hardwired; someday, someone will invent a talk-o-meter that will produce graphs and charts confirming these changes in energy levels.

This difference in their sources of energy influences the way Es and Is think. Extraverts think out loud. When you listen to an Extravert, what you hear is the thought process in action. Es quite literally think outside the box—the cranial box! Introverts process their thoughts internally and often need time to reflect before speaking.

It is said of Es that they don’t know what they’re thinking until they say it out loud. Conversely, it is said of Is that they don’t know what they’re thinking until they process it internally. Thinking out loud, something Es take for granted and do naturally, can be uncomfortable for Is. However, if Is have time to reflect, they often express themselves more articulately than Es because their utterances have been through several rehearsals and are ready for show time. Actually, as one who knows, I’ll admit that the process sometimes entails having a thought, reflecting on it, reviewing it, revising it, rehearsing it, modifying it, editing it, rehearsing it once more, and then saying it aloud—maybe.

Given these differences, it’s not surprising that Es and Is sometimes get into conflict with each other. William Murray points out the dilemma in his humorous portrayal of type, Give Yourself the Unfair Advantage: “Obviously, both are liable to mis-communicate the importance of a problem because when an Introvert signals importance by putting it in writing, the Extravert assumes that it wasn’t important, or he would have called about it. The Extravert calls about something urgent, and the Introvert may assume it’s not important—or it would have been put in writing!”⁵

⁵ William D.G. Murray, Give Yourself the Unfair Advantage: A Serious Practical Guide to Understanding Human Personality That Will Have You Rolling in the Aisles (Gladwyne, Penn.: Type & Temperament, 1995), p. 31.

Taken to an extreme, the Introvert wonders whether the Extravert will ever shut up, and the Extravert wonders if the Introvert is dead or alive. Is this a huge communication difference? Absolutely! And unless we really work at understanding this difference, it can lead to conflict, frustration, or confusion.

Even listening styles are different between Es and Is. My extraverted friends tell me that interrupting an Extravert is a sign that you’re listening; one friend actually urged me to interrupt her when she was talking. I tried, but it felt rude—maybe because to Introverts, interrupting is a sign that you’re not listening. To further complicate matters, you can interrupt Introverts even when they’re totally quiet, because they’re often busy processing ideas internally.

It is important to note that conflict, frustration, and confusion can occur not only between Es and Is, but also between Es and between Is. That is, when an Extravert is speaking, it can be just as difficult for another Extravert to know when the speaker has reached a final thought as it is for an Introvert. We’d all benefit from a visual signal that says, “I’m done thinking out loud and I’ve reached a conclusion.”

Similarly, Introverts sometimes confuse other Introverts. When a person is especially quiet, both Introverts and Extraverts can fall into the trap of wondering if anyone is home. An Introvert’s visual signal might say, “Processing in progress.”

• Give Introverts information in advance, preferably in writing, and allow them to reflect on it before asking for feedback. For example, if you’re planning a meeting, send out an agenda or a list of questions beforehand, so Introverts have time to think about the plan.

• Allow opportunities for quiet time. Some Introverts will go stark, raving bonkers if they don’t have at least a brief period of quiet time every day.

• Try not to foist too much of your extraverted energy on Introverts at one time without checking to see how they are reacting. Sometimes a break in the conversation, a time-out in the meeting, or an opportunity to converse one-on-one instead of in a large group enables Introverts to recharge.

• Recognize that an Introvert’s silence doesn’t mean that the person isn’t participating. More often than not, the person is fully engrossed—but because this involvement is going on inside the person’s head, his or her interest may not be apparent. If you want to know what Introverts are thinking, ask. Otherwise, they may not tell you.

If you’re an Introvert who interacts with Extraverts, consider the following:

• Recognize that Extraverts truly do think out loud. This means that what they say is often a work in progress, not a final thought, as it may be for you, so don’t take it as a conclusion without confirming that that’s the case.

• When Extraverts are speaking, show some expression on your face, like a smile, a curious expression, or even a frown, and offer an occasional utterance. Even “uhhuh” will help; if you nod your head at the same time, even better. In general, be as responsive as you can. Extraverts thrive on signs of life.

• Recognize that Extravert’s often prefer to interact face-to-face or by phone, rather than strictly by e-mail. Direct interaction energizes them; impersonal forms of communication drain them.

• Allow Extraverts to do the talking that’s essential for them to come to an understanding of an issue. For Es, printed information often doesn’t come alive until they’ve had a chance to discuss it out loud.

Most importantly, both Introverts and Extraverts can speak on their own behalf about what will be helpful to them. That’s where an understanding of this difference really helps. Extraverts can remind their introverted colleagues (as well as their fellow Extraverts) not to mistake the ideas they are expressing as their conclusion; they’re still processing their ideas. Introverts can remind their extraverted buddies (and their introverted friends as well) that they need a time-out, a break, or a week alone in Hawaii.

I offer this last little quip deliberately to emphasize the point that people who understand E/I differences and can talk about them with their counterparts can enjoy the playful implications associated with these differences. I can readily accuse my MBTI-conversant extraverted friends of competing for the gold in the Yap-athon. And they can quite justifiably accuse me of not knowing which end of the telephone is for talking into.

Remember, though, that you can’t always determine from someone’s behavior at work whether that person is an Introvert or an Extravert. Behaving like an Extravert is required to get along in the world, and many Introverts are skilled at it. I was a manager when I first took the MBTI along with several other managers. Every one of us, myself included, assumed that all the other managers were Extraverts. In fact, as we discovered, most of us were Introverts; we extraverted because the job required it, and clearly we excelled at it. This revelation was an important lesson: Do not confuse talkativeness with introversion or extraversion. Both types are capable of filling the airspace with plenty of conversation when the job requires it.

People frequently express surprise at learning that an Introvert can be a seminar leader and a professional speaker who feels energized from speaking in front of an audience of a thousand or more. Yet that’s what I regularly do—and love doing. And it is an undeniable fact that Extraverts can and do write books, an activity that may require both introspection and isolation. Extraversion does not mean a person lacks the ability to be introspective and reflective. Some Extraverts are shy and some Introverts are aggressive. Whatever the case, it’s best to guard against stereotyping anyone—Extravert or Introvert.

Whether or not you positively know that someone is an E or an I, the best approach to building a strong foundation for communication is to discuss preferences as early in your relationship as possible. Talk about what communication style is most comfortable for each of you. Collaborate on how you can communicate with each other in a congruent fashion, maintaining respect for each other’s preferred style without sacrificing your own. And let it be part of your foundation-building effort to give each other explicit permission to raise issues about how you communicate so that—both as individuals and as a team—you can adjust communication styles in support of your relationship.

As I think back to my train ride and my thoughts at overhearing the energetic talkaholic, my wish is that she may someday learn that neither talkativeness nor silence is indicative of the quality or quantity of a person’s ideas. We all have lots of ideas; we just express them differently.

Up went the image. I tried to grasp what it was, but as quickly as it was projected, it was gone. It was just as well. It was a strange image, and I didn’t like it. It struck me as otherworldly and eerily futuristic. My group-mates and I compared reactions. We agreed that the man in the image seemed cartoonish rather than human, and that there was something robot-like about him. He was carrying a container of balls or fruit or maybe the objects were rocks, although the idea that he was carrying rocks seemed odd. There were also some creepy bugs, reminiscent of pre-special-effects movies in which the monsters didn’t look quite real but appeared menacing nonetheless.

When the time allotted for discussion was up, the instructor asked my group to report what we saw. We described what we had seen and conveyed how uncomfortable we felt. Then, she asked members of the other group to describe what they had seen. They reported an image with three people in it, describing a man, roughly in the center, facing out; a woman at the top left of the image, looking upward; and another man, off-center to the right, facing back and to the right. They said the man facing forward was carrying a basket of yellow fruit, but they couldn’t be positive whether the fruit was grapefruit or lemons, or both. They noted that there were several insects in the image, saying that some looked like tarantulas and some like centipedes that were missing legs. As they finished speaking, people from my group looked at each other in amazement: three people? grapefruit? centipedes missing legs?

This exercise provided a striking—and amusing—illustration of the differences in what people pay attention to and what kinds of information they gather. We get information in two ways: through the five physical senses, and through intuition, sometimes described as a sixth sense. We all use both ways, but we gravitate toward one or the other, and the one we favor influences how we communicate.

Some people tend to be detail-oriented, like my grapefruit-observant classmates. These people are known in MBTI terminology as Sensors (Ss). They are tuned in to what they see, hear, smell, taste, and touch—that is, to what they take in with their senses. They have an orientation to the here-and-now and a tendency to trust what they can experience firsthand. They tend to see details before they see the big picture, so it’s not surprising that in only fifteen seconds, they noticed the number of people, the size and color of the fruit, and whether the centipede had all its legs.

Other people tend to be more like those who were in my group during the class exercise. Known in MBTI circles as Intuitives (Ns), I and the others in that group gravitate toward the big picture (recall that, to us, the image seemed otherworldly), toward impressions (the composition gave me a creepy feeling), toward possibilities (the container may have held balls or possibly fruit or even rocks), toward interpretations (the presence of rocks seemed odd), and toward associations between things (the man looked robot-like). We often miss details, at least at first glance; it’s the gestalt that captures our attention. In short, Ns tend to see the forest; Ss tend to see the trees.

I’m not saying that Sensors don’t form impressions, or that Intuitives are incapable of observing details. Given more than fifteen seconds to view the image, our reactions would have overlapped to some degree. But in taking in information, the starting point for Ss tends to be facts and details, and their communication reflects this perspective. Being grounded in reality, they are often more comfortable when an idea is supported by concrete examples; the idea by itself may be harder for them to grasp in the absence of an example.

For Ns, on the other hand, the starting point tends to be the idea, impression, or thought. Examples can help to ground the idea, but are less critical than the idea—and sometimes Intuitives overlook examples altogether. Discussing matters at a hypothetical level comes more naturally to Ns, often to the exclusion of attention to facts and details. For example, a group of Intuitives was discussing how to pitch a product to prospective customers. When the group received an e-mail message from the sales staff with a recommendation it didn’t quite understand, group members began to speculate about what the sales staff meant: “If they meant this, then here’s what we should do. But if they meant that, then we should do this other thing. On the other hand, . . .” Relishing the hypothetical and enjoying if-then’s, they never considered simply going to the sales personnel and saying, “Please explain what you meant.”

Sometimes, Ss and Ns differ in their speaking style. Ss tend to speak in shorter sentences about down-to-earth facts. They focus on what is practical, real, concrete, and explicit. They tend to be literal, saying what they mean and meaning what they say. Conversely, Ns often speak in generalities and possibilities, voicing metaphors, theories, analogies, abstract terms, and wordplay. They sometimes confuse other people (including other Ns) by talking in long, meandering, circuitous, winding, maze-like, seemingly endless sentences—a style I know a lot about because I have been known to speak (and write) in sentences so long and winding that even I get lost partway through and wonder what it was that I was trying to say in the first place. Okay, you know what I’m saying. Fortunately, by practicing my sensing skills, I can sometimes tell by the puzzled look on people’s faces that I’ve lost them!

Ss and Ns often give directions in very different ways. In LIFETypes, authors Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jean Kummerow offer a delightful example of how an Intuitive gave a Sensing friend directions to a mountain lookout. The directions entailed heading east on a particular route, then turning north just beyond a fountain landmark, then continuing to the tree line, and finally turning west and following a road to the lookout point. These directions seemed precise enough—at least to the N—but the S friend got hopelessly lost on a dirt road. Fortunately, she managed to find her way back to her hotel.

As the N discovered—when her friend later called her—she had omitted some important details concerning the whereabouts and appearance of key landmarks. It seems the fountain spouted only five minutes every hour and was otherwise flush with the ground and indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape. The tree line, which clearly looked like a tree line from a distance, wasn’t recognizable as such from close up. As a result, the friend didn’t know where to turn or when she had gone too far.⁶

⁶ Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jean Kummerow, LIFETypes (New York: Warner Books, 1989), p. 29.

Details omitted from directions can be a problem, but the reverse can also be troublesome, as I personally experienced when Judith, a Sensing friend, gave me directions to her house: “Turn right immediately after the See’s Candy sign,” she said. Easy enough. But when I came to the sign, there was no right turn. The next right turn was onto a road a half-block away. I drove back and forth past the See’s sign three times trying to find the turn until I discovered there was a driveway immediately after the sign. I turned into the driveway, and it led me to a road that took me right to her front door. When I teased her about her directions, she pointed out that she had said to turn right immediately after the sign. I resolved to follow her directions precisely from that point on.

Unlike Ss, who tend to trust their senses, Ns are more likely to trust their intuition. They are less likely to let the facts stand in the way of a good opinion. Because their focus is on the abstract, they may miss what’s right in front of them, such as the exact wording of an e-mail message, or even an object so big it blocks their path. I once walked into my hotel room on the third day of a stay and noticed a huge potted plant near the entrance. “Where’d that come from?” I wondered. Of course, it had been there all along.

Ss and Ns often have different reactions to change. Ss, being present-oriented, tend to prefer the status quo. To them, stability is good; if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. What’s here and tangible and real is what can be trusted. Ns, being future-oriented, are more open to change. To them, too much of the same bores them, whereas something new is seen as fun, instructive, or a source of fresh possibilities. If it doesn’t work out, something else will.

The difference between Sensors and Intuitives can pose communication challenges in the workplace, such as the following:

• An N manager may describe an assignment in abstract, conceptual terms, leaving the S employee, who prefers more concrete detail, unsure about what to do. An S manager may give so much detail that an N employee experiences it as micro-managing.

• An S may resist a proposal presented by an N unless there’s tangible proof that the N’s idea has merit. An N may speak in metaphors that an S finds difficult to decipher.

• An N, having jumped back and forth between possibilities, may become frustrated at an S’s methodical step-by-step approach. An S may get just as frustrated by an N’s meandering approach.

• A team of all Ss may do a great job of identifying the details of a project (the how), while neglecting the big picture (the why and what). A team of all Ns may have a lot of great ideas (the why and what), but may inadequately consider the details of implementation (the how).

Remember, however, that both Ss and Ns can excel at detail work. And both can do big-picture work. And at times, Ns can be shortsighted and Ss can be careless. What’s most important is not whether a person is a Sensor or an Intuitive, but how that person functions at work and how you accommodate that orientation in the way you communicate.

• Don’t try to solve problems for Intuitives. Present the problem or need or assignment, and allow them to use their imagination and originality to figure out a solution.

• In tackling a project, take advantage of the N’s natural skill in generating alternative approaches and innovative alternatives.

• Pay attention to the N’s big-picture ideas, recognizing that most important efforts require their vision skills as well as your own implementation skills.

• Help Ns see the details they may miss, or the facts they may forget to check, before drawing a conclusion.

If you’re an Intuitive working with Sensors, keep the following in mind:

• Recognize that Ss will more readily grasp your ideas if you incorporate specifics, such as examples, illustrations, stories, and firsthand accounts.

• Try not to get so carried away with your far-reaching ideas that you resist the pertinent details Ss are likely to bring to the decision-making process.

• Remember that Ss tend to communicate literally. Don’t overload your communication with metaphors, hypotheses, or the like.

• Appreciate the S’s ability and practical approach to implementing ideas; Ss provide an important balance to your visionary thinking.

Most important, both Ss and Ns can speak on their own behalf about what will be helpful to them. That’s where an understanding of this difference really helps. Sensors can remind their Intuitive colleagues of their preference for the real, the practical, and the concrete—and they can provide an example of what they mean in order to help Intuitives understand the importance of examples. Intuitives can remind Sensors of the trust they place on their imagination, and they can ask Sensors to tolerate a certain amount of jumping nonsequentially from idea to idea.

People with a preference for Thinking tend to be logical and analytical in the way they go about making decisions. They focus on pros and cons, cause and effect, logical consequences, and objective reasoning. As a result, the way they communicate their decision-making process or advocate the benefits of a certain course of action may come across to their Feeling colleagues as cool and insensitive.

People with a preference for Feeling, by contrast, tend to focus on personal values in making a decision. They are more likely to begin decision-making by considering how it will affect the people involved. This is a more subjective approach than the one used by those with a preference for Thinking, so it often strikes the latter as illogical.

In People Types & Tiger Stripes, Gordon Lawrence aptly captures the difference between Ts and Fs: “. . . thinking types believe an issue should be settled when they produce an objective, impersonal and logical argument, while feeling types don’t want it settled until the reasoning gives adequate weight to the human, personal consequences of the decision.”⁷

⁷ Gordon Lawrence, People Types & Tiger Stripes, 3rd ed. (Gainesville, Fla.: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, 1993), p. 100.

In their drive to be logical, Ts sometimes forget to consider the impact their actions or decisions may have on the people involved. Fs often come across as warmer, friendlier, and more diplomatic than Ts. When two Ts debate an issue, they may appear to their F counterparts as if they’re engaged in a vociferous argument. However, what appears to be a brutal battle may actually be a lively exchange that they are actually enjoying. Fs prefer harmony to divisive differences of opinion, and prefer to refrain from entering into disputes. When a Feeling friend overheard a decidedly heated discussion between my husband and myself (we are both Ts), she apologized for having asked the question that triggered it. She said she felt bad and hadn’t meant to start anything. “Start what?” I responded. “We were just doing some friendly jousting.”

Fs tend to be more forthcoming with praise, acknowledgment, recognition, and feedback (matters that are often thought of as feelings-related). They may empathize greatly with another person, even when that person’s actions are wrong or inappropriate at some logical level. Ts tend to give praise less often than their F colleagues, and to be more uncomfortable when they do give it.

Ts can and do care about people; and Fs can and do make a logical case. The fact is that most important decisions benefit from both a logical analysis and an assessment of the impact on the people involved, and both Ts and Fs can handle both approaches. But thinking-deciders and feeling-deciders start from very different places in the way they most naturally go about making decisions and forming conclusions, and the differences can be frustrating when the two types interact.

For example, a Thinker was trying to persuade his Feeling colleague to agree with him on an issue that was important to both of them. Logical though his ideas were, the colleague wasn’t convinced. The Feeling fellow explained that on matters of great importance to him, logical arguments didn’t stand a chance. He said that, in fact, the more his colleague appealed to his sense of logic, the less likely he was to be won over. The reverse can also be true—an F attempting to make a case to a T without using logic is likely to come across as just plain illogical.

This difference also affects what people want to be valued for. Recall Ann, the project manager in Chapter 4 who took great care to check in and ask how her team members were doing during a project. One team member, Joan, expressed dissatisfaction with Ann’s asking how she was feeling. Joan explained that she wanted to be acknowledged for her ideas, not her feelings. When the two reflected on their MBTI differences, they realized that Joan was a T and Ann was an F. Most people appreciate praise and recognition; however, as this experience illustrated, they may differ in why they want to be praised and recognized.

These examples suggest that if you want to successfully present your case to someone who takes a logical approach to things, use logic to make your point. Focus on the ideas and issues. Present the pros and cons. Describe the advantages and disadvantages. List some alternatives and the trade-offs of each.

Conversely, if you want to persuade someone whose orientation is people-focused, stress how the people involved will be affected. Express empathy, consideration, and concern for those who will be affected. Show concern for human issues, demonstrating how your case will take them into account. Express appreciation for the perspective of the person you’re trying to persuade.

The difference between these two decision-making approaches can play out dramatically during times of change. Ask a group of Ts and Fs what is important to them during times of change. Certainly, many of their responses will overlap. But Thinkers are more likely to report that they want to understand the reasoning behind a change, to know that it is driven by a plan, and to be kept informed of the status. They want an idea of the historical data behind the change. They want to have a sense of the parameters of the change. Being treated honestly is very important to them.

Fs are more likely to emphasize their desire to know how the change will affect people, how they can prepare for it and help with it, what will be different for themselves and others as a result, and how they can minimize the resulting stress. They want to know how others have dealt with the same situation, and who they can talk to who has been through it before. They want to know that someone is in charge of what’s happening. Being treated with compassion and empathy is very important to them.

As you’ll see in Section 4 (which treats the topic of gaps in managing change), a successful change effort requires communication that recognizes and acknowledges both Thinking and Feeling types. To emphasize one at the expense of the other may leave many people unhappy and unproductive.

• Present your ideas to your Feeling colleagues in terms of the impact they will have on people, especially if you’re trying to be persuasive.

• Acknowledge and appreciate them for their contributions. Offer praise. Let them know that their efforts are valued.

• Don’t overwhelm them with logical ideas and analyses. Ts sometimes inflict information on others, whether or not they want that information, and this tendency can be especially off-putting to Fs.

• Even if you’re uncomfortable displaying emotion, be open to its presence in others.

If you’re a feeling-decider who interacts with thinking-deciders, try some of the approaches noted below:

• Present your ideas in a logical, objective fashion.

• Recognize that Ts often focus more on the product than on the people. How people get along isn’t unimportant to Thinkers, it’s often just not as important as getting the job done.

• Encourage and allow Thinkers to express their natural skepticism and to question new ideas. Their views have merit, even when they seem to be presented in a hard-hearted way.

• Don’t overwhelm Thinkers with too much caring. Heaping help—whether work-related or personal—on others can be off-putting to Ts.

Both Ts and Fs should communicate their preferences about what will be most helpful to them as individuals. Those who prefer Thinking can remind their Feeling colleagues of the pluses and minuses, pros and cons, and advantages and pitfalls of a decision. Those who prefer Feeling can remind their Thinking counterparts of the high value they place on people’s emotional well-being and communicate that they will be more likely to see the merits of a case if it accommodates these values.

They had other differences as well. She especially enjoyed chancing upon interesting detours that would take them off the beaten track. He usually found these side trips interesting, but he was frustrated because they diverted him from his plan.

He insisted upon making hotel reservations in advance so they’d be sure to have a place to stay each night. She felt constrained by having accommodations already arranged, pointing out that a place to stay always seems to emerge when you need one. “Anyway,” she reasoned, “what is the worst that could happen if we don’t arrange everything in advance?”

She disliked his certainty that he knew the best way to plan things. He felt annoyed with her relentless impulsiveness and her inability to make a decision that they could stick to.

At the same time, they were able to see something positive about each other’s point of view: He admired her ability to adjust to the unexpected with relative ease. She admired his ability to create a plan and then follow it.

This couple’s experience illustrates two ways that people go about organizing their lives and their work—and also, as this example shows, their play. The two ways, in MBTI terms, are Judging (J) and Perceiving (P). As with other MBTI terminology, these terms have different meanings in everyday English than they do in MBTI context.

Let’s consider Js first. People with a preference for Judging favor closure and control. For such people, “closure” means having work done, decisions made, issues settled, and things in their place. “Control” means having control over one’s own actions and activities; it does not mean having control over others (although it may translate into this at times). Judgers like to have a plan, whether for the project, the trip, or the day—and maybe even for the weekend and the vacation. They like to be organized. Schedules and time frames are important to them. Judgers tend to be more interested in reaching the destination than in enjoying the journey; they often focus more on achieving the goal than on the process of achieving the goal. Getting things done is sometimes more important to Js than getting the right thing done.

Completing tasks is important to Js. In fact, to-do lists often reign supreme in their lives. Many Js get great satisfaction from not only having a to-do list, but also from checking off items once they’re done. (As a J, I’m not beyond writing “Check off this item” on my to-do list so I have something to check off first thing each day!) Uncertainty and surprise can make Js uncomfortable; after all, a surprise signifies a departure from the plan. Given these traits, Js are often very good at getting things done. One possible problem, though, is that Js can drive Ps crazy.

Perceivers see things very differently. For Ps, the journey is what’s most important, and if new options and opportunities arise along the way, well, they’re probably more interesting anyway. Perceivers tend to favor spontaneity and to be comfortable with open-endedness. A J friend of mine described an outing with her P husband as being like the flight of a bumblebee. For Ps, exploration is more important than planning; after all, plans change. When I told my friend David that I rarely give exactly the same presentation twice, he pointed out that he rarely gives the same presentation even once. Spoken like a true Perceiver!

Unlike Judgers, Perceivers aren’t averse to surprises, because a surprise is just one more possibility. Ps may make to-do lists, as Js do, but they aren’t as likely to use them; indeed, they may lose them or forget about them. They usually dislike being forced into making a decision too soon because they want to remain open to new options. Ps resist routine, may work best under pressure, and tend to be comfortable with change, viewing it as just another possibility. Perceivers can be very inventive in seeing new ways to do things. Just as Js can drive Ps crazy, Ps can drive Js crazy.

The differences between Perceivers and Judgers are very real, and relationships can break down when people don’t appreciate the existence of these differences or haven’t found ways to talk about them. In Type Talk at Work, Otto Kroeger contends that this Judging-Perceiving difference is the biggest source of interpersonal tension at work, with numerous problems traceable to the difference between the Judger’s need for “an opinion, a plan, and a schedule for nearly everything” and the Perceiver’s ability to be “spontaneous and easygoing about everything short of life-and-death issues, and sometimes even about those.”⁸

⁸ Otto Kroeger, with Janet M. Thuesen, Type Talk at Work: How the 16 Personality Types Determine Your Success on the Job (New York: Dell Publishing, 1992), p. 42.

As with the E/I, S/N, and T/F differences, both Ps and Js bring enormous strengths and potential liabilities to their work. Too strong an emphasis on either P or J can be damaging to a relationship; the challenge is to strike a balance between the two. As Kroeger notes, “Js need Ps to inspire them to relax, not make a major issue out of everything; and Ps need Js to help them become reasonably organized and to follow through on things.”⁹

⁹ Ibid., pp. 42–43.

Communicating about these differences is key to working together. Ps and Js may decide to divide up the work so as to draw from the strengths of each type. Communicating successfully may also entail compromise, with Js and Ps each giving up a little of what they prefer in order to work together amicably. Ultimately, each type can benefit from becoming open to the other’s approach and even trying it out. Despite being a J, I find the idea of being more spontaneous very appealing, and I’m working on it. Every Wednesday at 3:00 P.M., I try to do something completely spontaneous!

• Try to resist the natural J tendency to express yourself with strong judgments, quick opinions, and emphatic decisions. Try to be open to as-yet-unconsidered possibilities.

• Accept that from time to time, Perceivers will head in a direction other than the one you had expected and anticipated.

• When a P’s efforts take you in a different direction than you had planned, try to find the positive aspects of the experience; often, there will be more than you might think.

• Strive to build a solid-enough relationship with your P associates that you’re willing to trust them despite the surprises they may spring.

If you’re a Perceiver who interacts with Judgers, consider trying the suggestions listed below:

• To alleviate the J’s discomfort with uncertainty about when you’ll reach a decision that you can stick to, be willing to give a date by which you’ll have made the decision—or at least a date by which you’ll provide that date.

• Try to give advance notice to Js who travel with you that you are likely to change direction, even if it’s just a warning when you set out that you may end up going in a different direction. This procedure can also work for changes in business strategy and even for a change of mind.

• Try to appreciate a J’s attention to schedules and time. If it appears that circumstances will prevent you from ending a meeting on time or getting to an appointment when you are expected, ask the J’s permission to deviate from the plan.

• Focus on communicating expectations and clarifying intentions. Judgers who have some clue as to where you’re heading are likely to be more comfortable with taking a circuitous route to get there.

Both Perceivers and Judgers need to articulate what will be helpful to them. Judgers can remind their Perceiving counterparts of their discomfort with postponing decisions indefinitely. Perceivers can remind Judgers that they’d like to leave matters open for as long as possible. Finally, the two can try to draw from the strengths of each in order to achieve a mutually successful outcome.

We are multidimensional beings. Type is an important dimension, but it’s only one of many. Each of us brings tremendous strengths to our professional lives; and for each of us, a strength overdone can become a liability. If we allow ourselves to, we can find ways to draw from all of our strengths to succeed together in the workplace.