Myers-Briggs Personality Types for Negotiation

1
Myers-Briggs Personality Types for Negotiation

• College of Law Research Center
• Workshop
• Spring 2010

2
Myers-Briggs Dichotomies

• Four dichotomies
• Extraversion / Introversion (E/I)
• Sensing / Intuition (S/N)
• Thinking / Feeling (T/F)
• Judging / Perceiving (J/P)

3
Test

• http//www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

4
16 Personality Types
5
Population Distribution
http//www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/po
pulation-gender/
6
Temperament

• Temperament predisposes us to certain ways of
  thinking , understanding, conceptualizing and
  acting.

7
Extraversion

• More interested in the external world of people
  and things
• They derive meaning from
  connections with the external environment
• They maximize interactions

8
Introversion

• Interested more in the internal world of ideas
  and concepts
• Enjoy solitude and
  introspection
• Prefer to withdrawal from
  external activities

9
Sensing

• A tendency to perceive by relying on observable
  facts or happenings through the senses
• Persons with this
  preference are inclined
  to use practical fact
  oriented approaches

10
Intuition

• Emphasizes concepts, theories, relationships and
  possibilities
• Values inspiration

11
Thinking

• Make decisions impersonally, logically assessing
  cause and effect relationships related to data
• These people evaluate ideas and data objectively
  and value inferences reasonably drawn from events
  and circumstances more than any other type of
  evidence.

12
Feeling

• They emphasize the effect the decision will have
  on people and interpersonal relationships
• The attend more to human than to technical
  aspects of problems and value these concerns more
  than any other type of evidence

13
Judging

• Prefer a structured, scheduled, planned and
  controlled environment
• Tend to be organized, deliberate and capable of
  making decisions with a minimum of stress.
• They are usually scheduled, develop fixed
  ideas of how things should be done.
• They push strongly for closure.

14
Perceiving

• Prefer a flexible, spontaneous and adaptive
  environment.
• They tend to continue to collect information
  rather then make a decision.
• Have a wait and see attitude.
• Spontaneous lifestyle

15
Extravert/Introvert at Work

• Extraverts may see introverts as secretive,
  unfriendly aloof, self absorbed, slow and awkward
• When dealing with Extraverts, allow them to think
  out loud, use verbal communication, expect
  action, keep the conversation flowing. Let them
  work in groups and make oral presentations.
• Introverts may see extraverts as superficial, too
  talkative, loose canons, overwhelming, pushy and
  rude
• When dealing with Introverts ask a question and
  then stop to listen. Give them time to work
  alone, to finish their sentences, to learn
  through structure, to reflect, to communicate in
  writing first.

To Marin for providing the at work slides
16
Sensors/Intuitives at Work

• Sensors can regard intuitives as unrealistic
  Space cadets, new age, careless about details,
  unrealistic
• Work with an intuitive by talking about the big
  picture, possibilities, implications, analogies,
  before talking about details.
• Intuitives can view sensors as resisting new
  ideas, boring, unimaginative, old school.
• Work with a sensor by drawing on past proven
  experience, focus on practical applications, and
  step by step solutions.

17
Thinkers/Feelers at Work

• Thinkers may see feelers as illogical, too
  emotional or trying too hard to please
• With thinkers Be organized, consider cause and
  effect, pros and cons, focus on consequences,
  appeal to fairness
• Feelers may see thinkers as insensitive or
  distant or self-involved
• With feelers mention points of agreement, focus
  on their core values, appreciate their
  contributions, state legitimacy of their
  feelings, discuss emotional impact of situation

18
Judgers/Perceivers at Work

• Judgers may view perceivers as wishy-washy
  procrastinators, unproductive, unreliable, not
  serious
• With judgers be on time, come with agenda and
  conclusion, stick to plan, organize
• Perceivers view judgers as rigid, controlling
  black and white, stubborn, trigger happy
• With perceivers focus on process, be open to new
  information, expect questions, allow for
  discussion

19
The Article

• The following is based on the article Peters,
  Don, Forever Jung Psychological Type Theory, The
  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning
  Negotiation, 42 Drake Law Review 1 (1993)

20
WHY?
21
Negotiation

• Negotiation strategies require behaviors that
  many people may be adept with but
• they may also require behaviors that many are not
  drawn to naturally

22
Negotiation

• In analyzing your own negotiating skill in the
  context of MBTI what specific behaviors do you
  use, or fail to use

23
Why?

• Type Theory suggest behaviors strongly connected
  to a preference may become well-developed and
  comfortable making it harder for persons to
  perform tasks associated with the opposite scale
  without conscious thought and substantial
  practice.

24
Adversarial/Problem Solving

• Adversarial
• Gain Maximizing
• Problem Solving
• Fair deal making

25
Adversarial Strategies

• Proceed in a linear fashion
• Negotiators attempt to induce, persuade or
  deceive other into deviating from the positions
• Threats and attacks are used
• Inquires regarding facts and issues are evaded or
  shared reluctantly

26
Problem Solving Strategies

• Involves a cognitive commitment to searching for
  fair solutions
• Flexible
• Non-linear
• First indentifies underlying needs
• Looks for solutions that maximize potential for
  all parties
• Information is used to generate understanding
  about each others interests

27
Sensing/Intuitive

• The sensing/intuitive preference exerts the most
  influence on legal negotiations.
• ¾ of the general population are sensors
• In this study about 55 of the law students were
  intuitives.

Peters, Don, Forever Jung Psychological Type
Theory, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and
Learning Negotiation, 42 Drake Law Review 1
(1993)
28
Sensors

• The sensing preference is inclined to value
  concrete, detailed, factual information that can
  be verified by the five senses
• This tendency can influence attitudinal and
  behavioral orientations that may be directly
  related to important components of an adversarial
  strategy that they may cause sensors to favor
  this approach.

29
Sensors

• Sensors tend to prefer an adversarial strategy
  because it tends to unfold in a structured and
  easily tracked and linear fashion.
• Adversarial approaches focus on limited or fixed
  resources and single bargaining dimension.
• Sensors typically like to measure clearly and
  concretely what has been done and what steps
  remain to be accomplished.

30
Sensors

• Sensors in an effort to gather more facts tend to
  ask more questions
• Focus on whether a settlement zone exists between
  articulated positions.
• Sensors tend to pursue adversarial strategies
  that limit negotiators to searching for and
  using information within its linear framework.

31
Sensors

• While sensors may avoid problem solving
  strategies they use adversarial strategies
  effectively
• They are good at articulating and justifying
  positions
• They tend to be well prepared
• Use technically precise language
• Focus on detail helps them justify positions

32
Sensors

• Sensors frequently feel uncomfortable with a
  problem solving approach
• Sensors more comfortable with the immediate, the
  concrete and the practical
• Sensors better at recognizing when the opponent
  is blocking

33
Sensors

• Sensors are naturally inclined to focus on the
  specifics.
• This helps them avoid imprecise or ineffective
  articulations of the problem.
• Sensors deal with facts and details of
  situations . But rarely implicates the meaning
  and possibilities that could be gleaned from
  them.
• But, Deadlock may result if the compromise cant
  be reached.

34
Sensors/Intuitives

• Sensors are less effective at articulating
  problem-solving strategies
• Problem solving strategies focus on general
  concerns rather than specific details.
• Problem solving proposals get to specifics more
  slowly while parties elaborate their needs
• Sensors may get frustrated with this method

35
Intuitives

• Problem solving strategies used by Intuitives are
  much less structured.
• Focus on identifying needs
• Less focus on step by step behavioral patterns
  such as reciprocal concessions and information
  exchange
• Abstract search for interests and solutions
• But Intuitives sometimes dont pay sufficient
  attention to the details

36
Intuitives

• A female ENFP wrote
• I am horrible with figures (thus the J.D. as
  opposed to the M.D.), and when I was hit with
  percentages my brain slowed considerably and I
  lost my train of thought
• A male INTP wrote
• Hell, Im the worst numbers person there is . I
  dont want to talk numbers. Give me some
  abstract solutions, then Ill be on cloud nine.
  We can hash out the details later.

37
Intuitives/Sensors

• Proposed solutions in problem solving strategy
  should initially emphasize general concerns
  rather than specific details
• Articulating proposals in problem solving
  strategy effectively requires behaviors
  inconsistent with the natural tendency of sensors
  to focus on specific details.
• Emphasis on general concerns rather than
  specific details

38
Thinking/Feeling

• Thinkers emphasize logical and impersonal aspects
  of negotiation
• Impersonal form of assertiveness
• Usually prefer an adversarial approach
• Competing to maximum gain
• Cooperation based on legitimate interests of
  others is more difficult for thinkers

39
Thinkers

• Not focusing on the needs of others is consistent
  with the impersonal decision making tendencies of
  thinkers
• Focusing on the interests of others involves
  dealing with emotional issues
• Thinkers tend to respond to attacking comments
  with strongly phrased counter attacks - this
  intensifies conflict and my lead to impasse

40
Feelers

• Feelers are naturally attracted to
  problem-solving strategies
• Feelers prefer harmony and agreement
• Do not favor a winner take all strategy
• Feelers more concerned about their relationship
  with other negotiators

41
Feelers

• Feelers tend to give in to impersonally assertive
  competitive behaviors
• They tend to neglect ones own concerns to
  satisfy anothers needs
• May make undue concessions to avoid conflict
• Feelers may not be effective when dealing with an
  adversarial opponent

42
Feelers

• Feelers are usually good at active listening
• This can facilitate cooperation
• Active listening is an effective way to deal with
  strong emotions
• Feelers have greater sensitivity to relational
  aspects of personal interactions. This helps
  them monitor process issues (process refers to
  the way negotiations unfold rather than the
  intrinsic merits of the issues discussed.)

43
Judging/Perceiving

• Judging/Perceiving scale can be seen as
  closure/spontaneity
• Judgers want to make decisions get things done
• Judgers favor an adversarial strategy
• Judgers like to control the flow of information
• Judgers favor an adversarial approach that
  defines and orders issues, while the problem
  solving approach seeks to address the needs and
  interests of the parties.

44
Judging

• Extensively prepare
• Judgers more inclined to plan and schedule
• Stick rigidly to plans (stand firm) (sometimes
  convince themselves of the rightness of their
  view despite the empirical evidence
• Judgers attempt to control
• Schedules, agenda, others, (one way
  communication)

45
Judgers

• Judgers tend to become frustrated with a lack of
  progress
• Frustration may lead to threats
• Threats are sometimes used prematurely and
  haphazardly.
• Threats made without due consideration are
  usually a negotiating error

46
Perceivers

• Perceivers more comfortable with a problem
  solving approach avoid commitment while advancing
  proposals and solutions
• Remaining uncommitted helps insure that the
  proposals and solution intersect with the needs
  of all parties
• It promotes refining and improving suggestions to
  provide optimal mutual benefit.

47
Perceivers

• Tend more adept at generating alternative ways of
  completing tasks
• This adeptness correlates well with a problem
  solving approach
• Perceivers always want to learn more
• Perceivers however have to be careful about not
  revealing too much
• Blocking a question by responding to a question
  with a question comes naturally to a perceiver

48
Perceiving

• While perceivers always want more information
  their tendency to be spontaneous or acceptance of
  ad hoc approaches sometimes leads to acting
  without careful consideration.
• Perceivers preferring to act spontaneously have
  greater difficulty preparing and planning.
• This is more a problem in adversarial situation
  than problem solving

49
Extravert/Introvert

• Extraverts enjoy verbal interactions involved in
  negotiating
• Extraverts enjoy working with teammates
• Extraverts are more likely to seek out expert
  testimony
• Extraverts are comfortable with stating their
  case in an adversarial strategy
• But also comfortable with stating clients needs
  in a problem solving strategy

50
Extraverts

• Extraverts can error in rushing out an offer
  while there is still uncertainty of valuation
• (Some tendency to talk and not listen)
• Speak before developing thoughts
• May inadvertently leak damaging information
• May over answer questions and provide too much
  information

51
Extraverts

• While extraverts may be inclined to over share
  this is in fact an important aspect of a problem
  solving strategy
• Brainstorming
• Discussing ideas that arent yet fully developed
  without worry comes more naturally to extraverts
• Good for preparation
• Extraverts seek feedback

52
Introverts

• Non-talkative (better listeners usually)
• Internal
• Nondisclosure of information (selectively
  disclose information)
• Better blocking strategies
• Also recognize sooner when the opposition is
  blocking
• But not as good at thinking on their feet (being
  spontaneous)
• Tend not to be team players

53
Introvert/Extraverts

• Sometimes clash in style
• Extraverts become frustrated with introverts
  slower responses
• Introverts get frustrated with the quantity of
  questions from an extraverted opponent
• Extraverts interrupt more
• Extraverts feel stonewalled/Introverts pressured

54
Lessons

• A simple cognitive understanding doesnt mean
  that those behaviors can be produced
• Practice
• Identifying and evaluating students

55
Example

• A male ISTJ talked so much I thought he was an
  extravert, but he says he can only do that if he
  is solidly prepared. This taught me that my only
  hope is to spend time planning what I will do,
  and considering what could possible happen, if I
  am to compete with the natural extraverts.
  (female INTP)

56
Student Comment

• Because I am a judger, it is without fail that I
  have an intense urge that I come to closure
  during negotiations. (male ESFJ)

57
Student Comment

• In the past, I was aware of what I was feeling
  and its cause but I did not know how to respond
  in a way that did not add to the problem. Now I
  am learning how to use I messages and process
  comments and its wonderful because it gives me a
  chance to defeat my self-perpetuating cycle of
  ineffective negotiating. (female ESFJ)

58
Student Comment

• My inattention to detail affected my negotiations
  the most. Knowing the weakness, I can work to
  overcome it by writing everything down or by
  having a partner focus on details while I focus
  on main ideas . (male INFP)

59
Student Comment

• I always have a million thoughts and ideas
  running through my head when I work on any
  project. Concentrating and really hearing the
  other negotiators ideas is best accomplished by
  my knowing that I will repeat his/her positions
  and interests. (female INTJ)

60
Student Comment

• I totally shut down the listening process. I
  attributed this to my strong judging preference.
  During the last exercise when my position was
  attacked my first instinct was to shut down.
  But I realized what I was about to do mentally
  and stopped. I changed my posture in the chair
  and made concerted effort to listen. (male ESTJ)

61
Student Comment

• I was prone to revealing information
  unilaterally. I worked on being silent
  throughout the semester and became good at it.
  (male ESTJ)

62
The Article

• Based on the article Peters, Don, Forever Jung
  Psychological Type Theory, The Myers-Briggs Type
  Indicator and Learning Negotiation, 42 Drake Law
  Review 1 (1993)

63
The End