Newsletter #33

In this issue:

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® and Communicating with ISTJs

About the Strong Interest Inventory®: Changes in the 2004 Revision

About the FIRO-B™: Team Work Environment – Total Need for Affection

The 16PF®– The 16 Personality Factors: Factor C – Emotionally Stable vs. Reactive

Communicating with ISTJs

What are some good ways to communicate with ISTJs? Many of them prefer people who are calm, competent, and reasonable. They like to receive information in an objective, logical, step-by-step or systematic way. More detail is better. ISTJs generally appreciate accuracy, precision, and careful analysis. Many prefer to focus on one thing at a time, so you might want to limit your discussion to one topic. ISTJs are likely to approach any issue from a practical standpoint, and to consider the immediate consequences of a course of action. Many appreciate people who are frank, honest, direct, and considerate of the consequences of any action. Like other introverts, ISTJs generally prefer to have some uninterrupted time to reflect and consider options before making a decision. Pressing for an immediate decision is likely to lead to a "No."

Things to avoid when communicating with ISTJs include expecting to quickly change their minds or make a rapid decision. People who are highly emotional, animated, loud, or boisterous are unlikely to get an ISTJ's full attention. They are likely to be suspicious of any grand theory or abstract plan without concrete steps. At work, ISTJs prefer to avoid personal or emotional subjects. Like other Js, they frequently dislike surprises or changes to the existing system, unless change is supported by facts or data. They really prefer a plan. They want clarity and are often unhappy with vague comments or instructions. Finally, when ISTJs criticize at work, they usually do not intend it to be personal in nature. Therefore, accusing them of doing so will probably result in conflict.

About the Strong Interest Inventory: Changes in the 2004 Revision

Many changes were made in the latest revision of the test. One important change was the normative group now includes more non-White participants than in earlier editions. Occupations are more varied as well: people in 370 different occupations are part of the sample. The average age was 35, and they had an average of 9 years work experience in that profession.

New or renamed occupations that are part of the latest Strong include Admin Assistant, ESL Instructor, Network Administrator, Recreation Therapist, Technical Support Specialist, Computer and IS Manager, Urban and Regional Planner, Financial Analyst, Financial Manager, Rehab Counselor, Firefighter, Production Worker, Top Executive, and Computer Systems Analyst.

There is a new Personal Style Scale as well: Team Orientation. The scale shows a person’s attitude towards teamwork and shared goals. The two poles on the scale are "Prefers to accomplish tasks independently" and "Prefers to accomplish tasks collectively."

Further, there are changes to the Basic Interest Scales, for just the second time since 1968. New scales were added and some were renamed. The new scales include Computer Hardware and Electronics, Protective Services, Research, Human Resources and Training, Social Sciences, Marketing and Advertising, Entrepreneurship, Taxes and Accounting, Programming and Information Systems, and Finance and Investing. Some of the renamed scales include Mechanics and Construction, Visual Arts and Design, Performing Arts, Writing and Mass Communication, Teaching and Education, Healthcare Services, Management, and Law.

The General Occupational Themes were revised too. Conventional now includes programming and working with software, while Realistic includes working with computer hardware.

The FIRO-B: Team Work Environment – Total Need for Affection

This time we'll look at how your total Need for Affection score might influence your perception of your team’s mood or work environment. In general, your highest total need score shows which aspect of the team will give you the most satisfaction. If Affection is your highest score, then this will be the most important aspect of team work for you. You will likely work hardest to maintain or improve this aspect of team work.

Here are some signs your total needs for Affection are not being met by your team. You might feel the team is too businesslike and formal, that others would leave the group if given the opportunity, or that people are keeping their true feelings hidden from others. You might believe you need more moral support from your colleagues, or that you’re not sure how others on the team really feel about you. It’s possible you’ll feel the team is doing the bare minimum to get by, instead of trying to do their best. You could be sensing unresolved conflict or tension among your team members. Finally, you might believe you do not truly know your fellow group members.

The more of the above statements you agree with, the more likely you'll need to address some key issues with your team. For example, you might need to have a team discussion about personal histories, background, values, motivators, frustrations, etc. to create a more personable work environment. With further clarity, you can redefine your team role or perhaps move out of the team entirely if no agreement can be reached.

The 16 Personality Factors: Factor C – Emotionally Stable vs. Reactive

The next 16PF scale for discussion is the Factor "C" scale, which is Emotional Stability. What exactly does this scale measure?

Basically, this scale measures a person’s feelings about being able to cope with daily life and its challenges. People with high scores tend to take things in stride, and have an adaptive approach to problem solving. People with low scores tend to feel a lack of control over their lives. They are more likely to react to life events, as opposed to high scoring people, who tend to be proactive.

Factor C correlates strongly with the Impression Management scale. Social desirability is at work here. It's considered better to be able to cope with life. Admitting you feel unable to do is less desirable. This scale is a strong contributor to the Global Anxiety scale.

People with high scores on this scale often report they rarely run into a problem they cannot handle, that they recover quickly from negative events, and that they usually go to bed at night satisfied with how their day went. In contrast, low scoring people often report more ups and downs in their moods than most people, that their emotional needs are not that satisfied, and they feel they're unable to cope with all the small things that keep going wrong.