Myers Briggs Reexamined.

Madeline: ENFP
Jesse: ESTJ
Raquel: ESTJ
Drew: ENFJ
Carolyn: ISFJ

Before fully examining and discussing personality in class, the Myers Briggs typologies just appear to be random sets of four letters. You definitely ask yourself, “So I know my typology, but what exactly does that mean?” Well we can definitely say that the four letters mean a lot more than they appear.

We believe that most people assume that personality is the “end all, be all” when it comes to a person, or that because someone has a certain personality, their behavior will be consistent across all situations. As we learned in class, however, personality really more describes preferences and tendencies for how that person may engage with their environment and with peers.

As you can see from the list above, groups can have many different personality types. Because the types can vary, it is important, especially in the business world, to understand that people have differences in the way they work not only on tasks, but also with their coworkers. In order to be a valuable team member and/or leader, it is imperative that you recognize these differences so that you can utilize them in the proper way and create the most comfortable environment for the team member. If the person is comfortable, they are likely to be more efficient and productive in their work.

Check out Drew’s firsthand experience with this from the summer…

“During my summer work experience I observed the extent in which personality affected the way my co-workers performed their job.  My position as the manager of a retail complex meant I often had to instruct employees on how to perform certain tasks and duties.  Most of my time was spent working with two employees who were very different from each other in the way they learned.  By recognizing the differences in their learning preferences I was able to more efficiently develop their knowledge of the daily business activities. 

The first individual took immense care in performing her duties properly.  If she ever had any doubts about the correct way of conducting business she would simply ask questions.  I found that giving straightforward verbal instructions allowed her to quickly grasp what was required of her.  This allowed her to immediately ask follow up questions that were appropriate and often predicted what I was planning to explain next.  The exchange of information through a balanced verbal conversation was not only the way she was accustomed to learning but also the way in which she learned most effectively. 

The second individual was more independent then the first and preferred figuring things out on his own.  He was exceptional at observing and often learned how to perform certain duties without asking but by merely watching me perform them.  Although this meant he needed less instruction, he still recognized when it was appropriate to ask for help.  I found that with this employee explaining duties verbally was more inefficient than quickly demonstrating them.  His keen sense of observation allowed him to instantly learn the details of an activity by merely watching its execution. 

Examining the two workers under the Myers-Briggs framework also helps to explain their differences in learning preferences.  The first individual was most definitely and extrovert, sensor, feeler, and perceiver.  Her attention to detail, concern for emotions of those she engages with and willingness to examine all options helps explain her learning preference of thorough verbal communication.  The second individual was also an extrovert but differed in the remaining areas and was an intuitive, thinking, judger.  His concern for functionality and logic combined with his fast decision making explains why he preferred learning by quickly observing what was required of him. 

Although the verbal learner and the observational learner had different ways in which they preferred to be trained, both developed into valuable employees.  As extroverts, they both displayed great skill in customer relations which was the focus of their responsibilities.  They simply had vastly differing learning tendencies that can be explained by the remaining differences of their Myers-Briggs typology.  As a manager, recognizing and supporting these tendencies on an individual basis allowed for the business to run at its optimal level both in terms of efficiency and employee culture.”

Understanding Emotional Intelligence

UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE:

Whether or not Emotional Intelligence is the sole indicator of a good leader, Team Blue recognizes the importance of having the ability to to manage oneself and one's relationships in mature and constructive ways. In order to better understand the five aspects of Emotional Intelligence from Daniel Goleman’s essay, What Makes a Leader?, we decided to analyze famous portraits, since they are one of the best ways to read into one’s emotional strengths and weaknesses.

SELF-AWARENESS: Epes Sargent, John Singleton Copley (c. 1760)

Before photography existed, portraiture was the only way to permanently capture your image. As a result, most sitters were painted in the most ideal form, making them look younger and more handsome or beautiful than they really were. In this portrait, Epes Sargent is realistic about his image. When looking closely at his hand, one notices that he has severe deformities. Instead of eliminating this feature, he holds it close to his heart and has it painted in full detail. He also looks his age, as he is painted with wrinkles. This gives Sargent an air of self-confidence, since he looks proud of his features. It also shows that he recognizes his weaknesses and almost has a sense of humor about this disability. 

SELF-REGULATION:  Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear, Vincent Van Gogh (1889)

This is the famous portrait Van Gogh painted of himself right after cutting off his own ear. This incident occurred after Van Gogh was in an argument with revered painter, Paul Gaugin, and unable to manage his emotions, or deal with the ambiguity of being in a fight with a friend, Van Gogh cut off his earlobe. This tortured painter was obviously unable to think before he acted and was unable to effectively redirect his impulses and moods. 

SELF-MOTIVATION: George Washington, Gilbert Stuart (1796)

 

This portrait of George Washington represents motivation. First, his uniform and flag in background show his commitment to his organization. His confident stance, with his hand subtly placed on weaponry suggests he has willingness to achieve his goals with energy and persistence. Also, the dark clouds above show that there is an ominous threat of danger in the upcoming battles; however, Washington’s calm and serene visage shows that he is optimistic in the threat of failure.

EMPATHY: William Penn’s Treaty with the Indians, Benjamin West (1771)

This depiction of William Penn shows that he is empathetic when dealing with others. Penn’s central location, with his arms spread shows that he is open to and understanding of others’ ideas and emotions. In painting, the size of figures plays a huge role in their importance. Because all the men are of the same height, it shows that Penn sees everyone as equal and is sensitive to other cultures. The engaged group shows that Penn creates an environment in which people must understand others’ perspectives and take active interest in their concerns.

SOCIAL SKILLS: The Thinker, Thomas Eakins (1900)

In his late career, Thomas Eakins was known to paint very introverted and lonesome portraits. This particular one of Louis Kenton shows someone who lacks social skills. His refusal to make eye contact with the viewer suggests that he finds it difficult to connect with others, and is therefore unable to find common ground and relate to them, and most likely unable to build networks.  His downcast expression also indicates someone who is downtrodden and severely affected by change (perhaps the turn of the eighteenth century, as this was painted in 1900), not someone who is effective in leading change. These characteristic indicate that Louis Kenton would not be someone who has the social skills required to build and manage a team.  

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND LEADERSHIP:

Daniel Goleman also makes the argument that "without Emotional Intelligence...one won't make a good leader" (82). As a result, we wanted to test his theory and see how our Emotional Intelligences correlated with our leadership skills. In order to do this, we answered questions regarding leadership and compared them to the results of the Mcgraw-Hill Irwin Emotional Intelligence Assessment:

Questions:

1) Do you consider yourself a leader?

2) What leadership positions have you held?

3) What were the results of your Emotional Intelligence Assessment? 

Madeline:

1) Not really

2) Committee member of DESK

3) 76/100 indicating average Emotional Intelligence. I scored lowest in social skills and motivation, but have high self-awareness and management

Jesse:

1) No, In a group, I usually do not volunteer to be the leader, but I can lead if necessary.

2) High School Senior Class President

3) 76/100 - lack in self-motivation, high self-management, social skills

Drew:

1) Not really

2) Manager, Captain

3) 73/100. Lack self-motivation and social skills. High self-awareness and self-management 

Raquel:

1) I do consider myself a leader

2) Captain of the WFU Club equestrian team (this year and last year)

3) I scored a 63/100 on the EI.  I have a low self-management, but have a high self-awareness.

Carolyn:

1) Yes. Except in group situations, I tend to let someone else take leader

2) Vice president of Finance for my sorority

3) 74/100. High empathy and management, but need to "brush up" on self-awareness, motivation, and social skills.

Overall, our EI results definitely correlate with how we see ourselves as leaders. Most of us do not consider ourselves leaders, or let someone else be leader instead, which explains why we all had "average" EI