In the third post, my “Common Sense Approach” proposed that among the “Whats” we should know about ourselves is our (primary) emotional and personality type(s), with the assumption that the “Hows” would emerge in the process of exploring the basic components. And while I acknowledged that there are a “host” of other typologies, I found the ones offered here to be a workable set of traits without becoming overly complicated or digging too deeply into psychological or neurological theory. And neither does it try to “herd” people into one particular type, but begins with the statement that “Each person is a unique combination of four personality types,” which are initially briefly identified as follows:
- Goal-oriented, risk taking, good under stress – “Director”
- Relationship-oriented, outgoing, enthusiastic – “Socializer”
- Detail-oriented, logical, prepared – “Thinker”
- Task-oriented, cautious, stabilizing – “Supporter”
What I have done below is to summarize, for each of the four types, the strengths; weaknesses; motivations; common words/phrases; turnoffs/dislikes/fears; likely jobs; and some additional traits.
The task, should you choose to “dig in” to it, is this:
- If you had to put together a “symbiotic” type representative of “you,” what are the 8 to 12 characteristics you would choose from among the various categories of the types that I have summarized?
- Note whether the characteristics you chose (a) came primarily from one or two of the personality types or (b) whether they came fairly evenly from three or four of the types.
- Given your response, (a) what might that tell you about yourself? and/ or (b) what might it suggest about this particular set of personality types?
If you would prefer to explore the entire list and the complete discussion of each of the types on the website itself, see the notice at the end of the post.
Personality types (“Understanding the Four Personality Types,” Hire Success)
A. Director: goal oriented, risk-taking, good under stress—Other strengths:
likes to be in charge; not very detail-oriented; choosing to delegate; no-nonsense, bottom-line approach; entrepreneurial; dominant; good administrative skills; multitasking.
Weaknesses: stubborn; workaholic; impatient; insensitive; intolerant; domineering.
Motivations: money; challenges; urgency; leadership.
Common words,phrases: “let’s get it done;” bottom line; great return on investment.
Turnoffs, dislikes, and fears: “touchy/feely; looking soft/vulnerable; losing.
Likely jobs: President/CEO; business owner; entrepreneur; manager.
Other traits: don’t like a lot of restraints; tend to be workaholics; may seem impatient; not easily discouraged; get bored easily; works well under pressure; excel in high-stress situations.
B. Socializer: relationship oriented, outgoing, enthusiastic—Other strengths:
fast-paced individual; likes to be around people; being the center of attention; relationship builders; need is for approval; tries to like everyone; needs compliments, words of admiration. enthusiasm, fun-loving, charismatic, dreamer, people-oriented, self-confident.
Weaknesses: impatient; short attention span; arrogant; easily bored; impulsive; procrastination.
Motivations: public recognition; succeeding; being center of attention; latest styles.
Common words, phrases: “you look great;” “you’re the best ____;” “people love you;” “this will be fun.”
Turnoffs, dislikes, fears: public humiliation; being unappreciated; unattractive, unsuccessful.
Likely jobs: public relations; salesperson; politician; recreation director; customer service.
Other Traits: love to talk about themselves; biggest fear is being humiliated in public, so will always give the impression of being very successful; enthusiasm, outgoing behavior, friendliness; dreamers; normally spontaneous; impatient, short attention span; over-socialize; unstructured.
C. Thinker: detail-oriented, logical, prepared—Other strengths:
controlled and stable; interested in accuracy, rationality, logic; bothered by people who can’t control emotions; strive for facts, let the chips fall; creative, dependable, independent, detailed, organized, critical thinker.
Weaknesses: worry about progress; can appear unsocial; do things their own way; skeptical.
Motivations: control; challenges; problem-solving; being independent.
Common words, phrases: perfection; “how does that work?”; solitude; “tell me more about ____.”
Turnoffs, dislikes, fears: uncontrolled emotions; indecision; loss of control; distractions.
Likely jobs: trouble-shooter; engineer; research scientist; game designer; data analyst; pilot; musician; accountant.
Other Traits: don’t want to display much emotion; outcome driven; sticklers for following procedures; careful, resourceful; will take a stand with all the facts to back them up; want jobs clearly defined; prioritize tasks, see them through.
D. Supporter: task-oriented, stabilizing, cautious—Other strengths:
caring; sincere; compassionate; fair; dependable; calm; approachable; self-confident; observant.
Weaknesses: uncomfortable with constant change; going along to avoid confrontation; less assertive; hurt feelings.
Motivations: stability; benefits; security; routine; team opportunities; calmness.
Common words, phrases: relaxed; logical; rational; “Help others in need.”
Turnoffs, dislikes, fears: risks; pushy people; change; disorganization; the unknown; conflict.
Likely jobs: administrator; social worker; family doctor; mechanic; teacher; counselor; minister; librarian.
Other Traits: seek respect, admiration, acceptance; receive reassurance they’re needed; very organized; caring, thoughtful, compassionate; patient; good listeners; accurate, thorough; reluctant to express themselves; Having a secure, stable environment.
If you want to explore the website I have used and summarized, it is a little complicated to access, so please contact me in the comment section below, or send me an email: eleininger@mhu.edu.
In another post to follow soon, I will submit my own attempt at the task I have proposed. At the end of that post you will find my plan for the completion of this topic, Knowing Oneself, along with an announcement of interest.
6 Responses
Hmmm. Well, I was hoping the payoff for reading the abridged typology was your own self-assessment! Now I have the next post to anticipate. :-).
I enjoy these typologies, as you know–Myers-Briggs being the most convincing for me–and I’m quite sure that all of them would claim, as yours does, not “to ‘herd’ people into one particular type, but begins with the statement that ‘Each person is a unique combination of [ ] personality types.’ That’s certainly the underpinning of the MBTI. One of my med students this past week told me about “the new Myers-Briggs,” apparently the typology du jour: the Big 5 Personality Traits. I find that one and the one you use less helpfully fashioned than the MBTI, but they all have good insights into self–if for no other reason than that they simply make us stop and think about self! Here’s hoping that you tell stories as you parse your “type.” 🤗
Many thanks for reading and commenting on this,Kimberly, although I can’t even imagine that you would do so today after all you went through yesterday! That said, I’m not surprised that you have a personal preference for the Myers-Briggs typologies, with which I am familiar but not, I’m sure, at the same level as you are. It was one of several that I explored and I think there is no doubt that it is superior to the one I chose, However, other than simply referring readers to an/the MBTI website, I wasn’t sure—rightly or wrongly—that I could 0ffer a “summary” of the characteristics of the sixteen MBTI personality types in a “blog-site” presentation. Perhaps I should have thought that through more carefully but “what’s done is done” and, as you correctly and insightfully observe, it does simply “make us think about self.” At least I hope that happens, as it has for me, and I will venture into that arena in the next post.
I’ve seen similar “quadrant” based type indicators to the one you describe here about 40 years ago during some sales training seminar I attended. It was, then, a useful tool for thinking about self and how I interacted with other “types” of people. As I have aged, I find that none of these types fit me very well. For example, I’m a risk taker in the markets, but not in an amusement park, I’m good under stress in that I don’t worry, but I’m not a workaholic and don’t want to be in charge of anything or anyone. I’m impatient and a procrastinator like the socializer, but I’m certainly not relationship oriented, and don’t like being around crowds of others. Being the center of attention is the last thing I want. I’m a thinker, but don’t worry about progress. I am not turned off by uncontrolled emotions or distractions, except in meetings, and sometimes I’m the source of both. I’m hardly one to be considered cautious, love constant change, don’t want to be needed, and no one would consider me patient. I’m a misfit across the board. I’m type E – Curmudgeon. LOL.
Looking forward to your attempt. The MBTI used to put me as an INTP. Post mid-life crisis, I think it pegs me as an ENTJ or something like that, though I would say I’m probably more INTJ. I don’t put a lot of stock in the MBTI, but it is useful as a way to think about how people approach crises such as the mid-life.
Thanks, David, ever and again, not only for your reading the blog—which in itself deserves gratitude—but for your thorough and, as always, pointed and creative comment(s). I’m not at all surprised that you don’t “fit” any of these types—in fact, I would be surprised if anyone did—but I can’t imagine anyone taking the time and care to show, in trait after trait, just how disjointed and unparalleled your relationship is to the characteristics you choose to unpack. They are instructive, thought provoking, and, from one perspective, hilarious. I love the creation of Type E—curmudgeon! While perhaps most, including me, would not be as creative as you, I would expect them to draw characteristics primarily from at least two, or even three types.
While I understand that you are not a big fan of the MBTI, it is clearly a more nuanced and inclusive model than the one I chose—as were several of the number of other typologies I reviewed. I chose the one I did not because it was the best one, but because it did offer a coherent model and was simple enough to allow me to summarize it without oversimplifying or violating it. And as you so correctly put it, it is “a useful tool for thinking about self,” which was my goal.
Interesting tool for self-assessment and understanding. Probably would be excellent for groups to go through together.
Thanks, Joel. I appreciate your reading and letting me know that you did by posting your comment. I hope some readers will use it, as you suggest, for self-assessment and understanding, which is, of course, the reason I posted it. I think you’re right—although I hadn’t thought about it—that it would be a great group exercise—I’m sorry I won’t get the chance to do that with my readers!