• Like
Myers Briggs Personality Typesfor Negotiation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Myers Briggs Personality Typesfor Negotiation

  • 4,086 views
Published

 

Published in Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
4,086
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3

Actions

Shares
Downloads
344
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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. 16 Personality Types ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ
  • 4. Population Distribution http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/population-gender/
  • 5. Temperament
    • Temperament predisposes us to certain ways of thinking , understanding, conceptualizing and acting.
  • 6. Extraversion
    • More interested in the external world of people and things
    • They derive meaning from connections with the external environment
    • They maximize interactions
  • 7. Introversion
    • Interested more in the internal world of ideas and concepts
    • Enjoy solitude and introspection
    • Prefer to withdrawal from external activities
  • 8. 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
  • 9. Intuition
    • Emphasizes concepts, theories, relationships and possibilities
    • Values inspiration
  • 10. 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.
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 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.
  • 13. 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
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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.
  • 16. 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
  • 17. 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
  • 18. Test
    • http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
  • 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 other’s 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 can’t 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 don’t 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, I’m the worst numbers person there is …. I don’t want to talk numbers. Give me some abstract solutions, then I’ll 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 one’s own concerns to satisfy another’s 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 aren’t 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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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 negotiator’s 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