Personality Types: Carl Jung And Limits Of The Myers-Briggs Test
What is your personality type?
If you have ever done a specific personality test, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) then you may even answer that question with a four-letter acronym such as ‘INTJ’, or ‘ESTP’.
The Myers-Briggs psychometric questionnaire, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (or MBTI®) was the first personality test that I came across in my career. It is a very popular tool (the Myers-Briggs Foundation claims that over 2 million people use the system every year), hence it is not uncommon for people in conversation to describe themselves according to their MBTI profile.
When I first used the MBTI tool, I found it informative, but upon repeat use (and further research) I started to discover issues with the system. But to understand these limitations we need to understand a little of this field of psychology and the approach used by Myers-Briggs.
What is personality in psychology?
Before we explore the idea of types, we first need to clarify what we mean by personality. It is a word that encompasses so much significance and yet we can often struggle to explain it. So let us turn to a couple of definitions.
The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of personality is:
“The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character.”
This is a common understanding of personality, but this definition is worth expanding upon when trying to quantify the psychological elements of character. For example, the American Psychological Society has a slightly fuller definition:
“Personality refers to the enduring characteristics and behaviour that comprise a person’s unique adjustment to life, including major traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns.”
As you can see from the later definition there is an emphasis on behaviour and personality traits. This reflects the current predominant psychological thinking in this field. Traits are aspects of our character, particular qualities, the makeup of which makes us unique.
The trait theory of personality – from Hippocrates to Jung
The idea of personality traits goes at least as far back as Hippocrates (c.460-377/359BC) who wrote about the Four Humours. The Four Humours or Temperaments can be translated as cheerful (sanguine), sombre(melancholic), enthusiastic (choleric) or calm (phlegmatic), and the idea of identifying these was to assist in the diagnosis of physical medical conditions.
This thinking on personality did not really change until the late 1800s and this four-element system informed the next person who revolutionised theories about personality, that person being Carl Jung (1875-1961).
Early in his career, Jung developed a friendship with neurologist Sigmund Freud (founder of psychoanalysis) and for a while, they collaborated in their work. However, these two heavyweights of psychology eventually parted ways as Jung’s theories of personality (and broader psychology) started to diverge from Freud’s. Key to the differences was Jung’s downplaying of the importance of libido (sex drive) on the subconscious, a cornerstone of Freudian psychology. Instead, he started to theorise about personality types and how they reflected the balance of conscious and unconscious thought in human behaviour.
The (slightly misunderstood) importance of extroversion and introversion
Jung approached the idea of personality from the perspective of types (or archetypes) rather than traits. As with Hippocrates, his motivation behind identifying types was from a medical perspective, but in Jung’s case (as with Freud) his was primarily concerned with psychological maladies rather than purely physical ones.
The most widely known concept that Jung introduced was the concept of extraversion (extroversion) and introversion. What many people don’t know is that these two types are primarily concerned with psychic energy (where people get their vitality from) rather than just a way of describing if someone is outgoing or shy. An introvert’s psychic energy is internally focused, whereas an extrovert’s psychic energy is externally directed.
Thus, an extroverted person gets energy from external stimulation, from being around other people and having a large social network. They tend to think out loud, enjoy variety and seek broad experience. They like being the centre of attention.
By contrast, an introverted person dislikes being the centre of attention. They get energy from having less external stimulation and will often withdraw from social interaction to reflect and recharge. They tend towards fewer, deeper relationships, think before speaking and tend towards developing deep knowledge rather than broader experience.
These two attitudes are foundational to the other personality types that Jung identified.
Jung’s Functional Personality Types
Jung divided his four functional types into the ‘rational’ aspects of thinking and feeling (reflecting preference as to how people make judgements), and the ‘irrational’ elements of sensation and intuition (regarding preferences in how people perceive the world).
By this typology, the thinker tends to be objective and analytic, whereas the feeler is more subjective and gives more weight to emotions. Those who predominantly rely on sensation tend to be practical and look to real-world solutions in the here and now. Someone who is more intuitive tends to use their imagination and speculate about the future.
By adding these four functions to the base personality types (introverted or extroverted), one can extrapolate eight personality types. For example, an introvert can be linked to thinking or feeling, sensation or intuition (creating eight types) and similarly again from extroverts. Thus, you might have an Extraverted Thinking Intuition ET(N) type or an Introverted Feeling Sensation IF(S) type.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Tool
The MBTI model was developed by Isabel Briggs Myers, alongside her mother Katherine Briggs, and sought to apply Jung’s theories to understanding behaviour, not just abnormal behaviour, or psychiatric disorders. Thus, the tool aims to identify and clarify individual behavioural preferences in everyday life.
They added two further personality aspects to Jung’s model, that of judging and perceiving. In this case, Someone who is high on the judgement scale is more decisive and likely to stick to their choice, whereas those with a higher perceiver score are more flexible and spontaneous.
These functions were originally taken as implicit in Jung’s model but were made more explicit in the MBTI model. By adding these final two factors to the eight Jungian types, they then become the sixteen personality types of the Myers-Briggs profiles.
The Myers-Briggs (MBTI) personality types
When I first used the tool, I found it helpful in this manner. It introduced me to the psychology of personality. It also helped me to better clarify my own preferences and better understand my strengths and weaknesses.
In my experience, anything that helps us understand ourselves and others better is a good thing. And to that degree, I think MBTI can be useful. However, I soon found some limitations with the methodology.
Can you have a specific personality type if the results differ?
The first problem I encountered was that when I did the test again, I got a different result. And then again, the next time. From further tests, and from analysing my results, I found that I sat on the cusp of four different personality types.
For example, I sit at the threshold between introverted and extroverted. I prefer to withdraw to quiet spaces to recharge my energy and I primarily process internally. But, much of my work is done in a social context and I enjoy variety. But this means that I often get seemingly contradictory results in MBTI tests.
Therefore, it was hard to say I was an exact type, as I did not sit neatly into one of the 16 categories. I found that it was hard to define exactly what my personality was, if hard boundaries were enforced between the profiles.
The problem with putting people into boxes
This leads to the second problem I have with MBTI: at a philosophical level, I don’t like the way it puts people into boxes.
At first, I didn’t like this on an intuitive level but as I researched more of the psychology of personality this was backed up by not liking this on an empirical level. The increasing evidence is that personality can (and does) change over time. Therefore, it is not helpful to think about ourselves as a fixed ‘type’.
This philosophical divergence is linked to my belief in one’s ability to change. My roles, both as a leader and as a coach revolve around change. Leaders seek to bring about change, a vision of a better future. Coaches help to facilitate change by helping individuals think more clearly, to achieve goals or change behaviours.
Bringing about individual evolution is about shifting behaviours and this is hard to do if people have a fixed idea about who they are. The ability to change, at an individual level, is fundamental to the idea of having a growth mindset. The same is true for building better habits. As James Clear highlights in his book Atomic Habits,
“It’s hard to change your habits if you never change the underlying beliefs that led to your past behaviour. You have a new goal and a new plan, but you haven’t changed who you are.”
Therefore, it is important to avoid beliefs that fix us to the idea that we must behave in a certain way. It is a wrong assumption to believe we cannot change just because we are constrained by personality type. Personality is just one factor, and though it might evolve slowly, it is not static.
Do you have a personality type or just preferences depending upon certain traits?
Carl Jung changed the way we understand personality today, particularly with his introduction of the concepts of introversion and extroversion. But we must be careful not to see ourselves as fixed types. And therein lies the fundamental problem with the Myers-Briggs interpretation of Jung’s psychology. It is too easy to see ourselves defined by a specific personality type.
If we want to be better, to improve ourselves, then we should seek to understand our preferences but not be restricted by them. We should identify and play to our strengths, but not consider that we are fixed in our character and behaviour. Don’t put yourself in a box.
“Know thyself” – Socrates
So, the next time you do a personality test, don’t let that constrain your thinking of who you are. Use it as helpful data to better understand yourself, not a judgment to be constrained by.
And if you want to do a personality test then I recommend the Big 5 (OCEAN) model rather than MBTI (and no, I am not paid to say that or earn money from Big 5 psychometric tests!). I recommend the Big 5 as it is now the preferred standard test of most psychologists and has better scientific backing, as you can read about in How to work out your personality with the Big 5 (OCEAN) model.
If you want the right answers you have to start with the right questions
About The Right Questions
The Right Questions is for leaders who want coaching towards greater clarity, purpose and success. We are all leaders (whether we know it or not) as we all have influence. So the question is, what are you doing with your influence?
Wherever you are on your leadership journey, I hope that you find resources on this site to help you on the next leg of your quest. Even if that is just the inspiration to take one small step in the right direction, then that is a success. If you can take pleasure in learning and travelling as you go, then so much the better.
I love to serve people, helping them unlock their potential, empowering them as leaders, and coaching them to achieve their goals. Please get in touch and let me know how I can support you!
How Cognitive Bias Influences Thinking And Decision-Making
Saying that someone is biased is often used as criticism. We point out when someone obviously favours a person or thing more than another. Bias is synonymous with being prejudiced and that has even more negative connotations. Being prejudiced means having an opinion not based on reason or reality. Thinking of that sort leads to bad judgements. In other words, we associate bias with poor thinking and bad decision-making.
“The way a particular person understands events, facts, and other people, which is based on their own particular set of beliefs and experiences and may not be reasonable or accurate.”
So, bias has an individual flavour to its complexity, but research has shown that there are some common trends as to how our bias manifests. In the ever-increasing body of scientific study about cognitive bias, the best place to start is with Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking Fast and Slow.
To explain the title, fast thinking (also called system 1 thinking) is the intuitive, often unconscious judgements that we make. Slow thinking (or system 2 thinking) is the more (seemingly) logical, conscious thought process that we employ. Neither system is better than the other, they are just different. Kahneman’s research shows that both systems are influenced by cognitive biases, and we generally choose to ignore these influences in our decision-making.
“Our comforting conviction that the world makes sense rests on a secure foundation: our almost unlimited ability to ignore our ignorance.”
Therefore, bias affects all thinking, and decision-making is just one such thought process influenced by cognitive biases.
The way the brain works when making choices is a marvel of creation. The neural substrates that support our decision-making are not fully understood but, when we make choices, our brain is a lightstorm of synaptic activity, igniting the prefrontal cortex and pulsing out into the hippocampus, posterior parietal cortex and striatum.
Even before we know what we are thinking, our network is leaping into action. Dendrites are stimulated and neurons are firing signals through the axons to other neurons at an astonishing rate.
Ironically, thinking about decision-making like this is mind-boggling!
Thinking of the brain simply as a computer is a poor analogy but, as with computer processing, the brain loves speed. And, to be as fast as possible, firing neurons love to take shortcuts. These shortcuts can help us make judgements at much greater velocities, but as I have already talked about with heuristics, these shortcuts can get us into trouble at times. They have nearly killed me on occasion! Closely linked to heuristics and these shortcuts are cognitive biases.
An example of my biases laid bare
I was wondering how to illustrate the effect of bias on our thinking and decisions and then something happened to me that made me examine many of my own biases. Let me share it with you.
Simon Sinek is one of my favourite writers and speakers and earlier this year Simon Sinek gave a talk about work and how we should love what we do. As ever, Simon’s message was heartfelt and compelling. There was so much I could agree with. I generally do love my work. As a leader, I want the people who work for me to love what they do, and I feel the responsibility for creating that psychologically safe environment where people do feel supported and allowed to flourish.
The funny thing was that I had a little niggle in the back of my head, telling me something was not quite right. So, I watched it again. Afterwards, reflecting on what Mr Sinek was saying, I was able to identify what had got my spider-sense tingling.
What makes a statement true and why do we believe it?
There were a couple of statements that I started to re-examine. The first one is:
“It is a right, it is a God-given right, that we should love where we work.”
Simon Sinek
As Simon says those words my heart is saying “Amen brother!” but my head is saying, “Is that actually true?”
So, I examine the statement again, leaning on the wisdom of others and the power of logical syllogism. The philosopher Karl Popper would start by pointing out that the statement is a non-scientific fact. The statement is not phrased as a logical premise, and it cannot be disproven by scientific means.
If you add theologians into the mix, they will point out that holy books such as the Bible or Koran don’t exactly say that loving work is a God-given right. The emphasis is on loving God and other people rather than work itself.
So, let’s use Simon Sinek’s own advice and “start with why” when we think about his statement. Why does he say that? The statement is actually a rhetorical device, used for emphasis and emotional response. And in those terms, it achieves its ends. But that leaves the question, why do I want the statement to be true, even if it isn’t a fact?
This is where we come to the flaws in my processing. My thinking is being influenced by multiple biases at once.
The first thing that I am experiencing is the Halo effect. In other words, I am likely to agree with whatever Simon Sinek says because I like and respect him. I expect him to be right. There is also an immediate anchoring effecttoo because when I see Simon Sinek, I think of Start With Why, a book I really enjoy. Therefore, I am expecting to like what he says. This leads to an acquiescence bias, so I am more likely to agree with any statement Simon makes.
Sinek is also a leadership guru and talks about things I care about, so I am also suffering from In-group bias, where I favour other leadership geeks; we are the same tribe. Hot on the heels of these preconceptions is groupthink. The interviewer and the people in the audience all seem to be nodding and smiling. I want to go with the consensus. What’s more, no one is challenging what he is saying so there is also a bystander effect. I am not going to make myself look stupid and say something might be wrong if they all seem to agree with him.
Yes, there are more biases yet!
Next is optimism bias. Simon Sinek is a self-proclaimed optimist, so it is not surprising that his message is alluringly optimistic. Also, I want it to be true – as I want to love all my work all the time – so confirmation bias creeps in. I hold to the belief that we can love work, so I start to suffer from belief bias too. I am also suffering from the just-world hypothesis by expecting things to be fair and for people to get what they deserve. Unfortunately, that is not reality.
That one line of logical fallacy is wrapped up amongst a host of other statements that I agree with and so there is also a framing effect. What I see as the validity of the whole talk influences the context in which I judge any one phrase.
And there is more. As I learn more about leadership, the more I realise that there is so much I don’t know. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. So, I want to learn, and Simon Sinek is an expert I respect, so I naturally doubt the limits of my own knowledge. When I think about my own abilities, I have a negativity bias and suffer from imposter syndrome; therefore, I doubt myself even more.
The tip of the cognitive iceberg
So, I managed at least 12 cognitive biases in the space of two minutes! And that’s just the ones I can easily identify. There are many more biases and if you would like an introduction to a few more of the common ones then I recommend you visit yourbias.is
So, what am I trying to say? That what Simon Sinek says is bad? No, far from it. I remain a fan even if I cannot agree with every single thing he says. And that is fair enough, I don’t think I would agree with everything that has come out of my own mouth if I could only remember things accurately (rather than suffering from misinformation bias)!
The example I used was to demonstrate the dizzying quantity of cognitive biases that can be at play every time we think about something.
You are biased, but don’t panic. Reflect.
The takeaway point is that bias affects us all, all the time. And the tricky thing about bias is that it is hard to spot in ourselves (although seemingly we are able to spot it more easily in other people!)
“We can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness.”
Daniel Kahneman
If we want to think clearly and make effective decisions, we need to be aware. We cannot avoid cognitive bias but, if you are aware of your thought processes, you can reflect and critique your own thinking.
You can put your newfound knowledge into practice by having another look at the Simon Sinek interview yourself. There is much to enjoy in what he says but there is also at least one more logical fallacy or false statement in there. Can you identify what it is?
And, when you scroll through your social media today think about your reactions to what you are seeing. How are you being influenced? Which biases can you identify in your own thinking?
Congratulations! You are creating the foundations for better thinking and more effective decisions.
If you want the right answers you have to start with the right questions
About The Right Questions
The Right Questions is for leaders who want coaching towards greater clarity, purpose and success. We are all leaders (whether we know it or not) as we all have influence. So the question is, what are you doing with your influence?
Wherever you are on your leadership journey, I hope that you find resources on this site to help you on the next leg of your quest. Even if that is just the inspiration to take one small step in the right direction, then that is a success. If you can take pleasure in learning and travelling as you go, then so much the better.
I love to serve people, helping them unlock their potential, empowering them as leaders, and coaching them to achieve their goals. Please get in touch and let me know how I can support you!
The Seven Most Important Questions in the English Language
The most important questions and the starting point for The Right Questions. These are the words where, what, why, when, who, how, and which. Using just seven interrogative words as the basis of a strategic questioning methodology is the simplicity of The Right Questions approach. These seven interrogative words are part of the basic building blocks of our language; they are hardwired into our thinking. In this way, simplicity becomes a fundamental strength of the system. That is why they are the most important questions of all.
“Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.”
Winston Churchill
The interrogatives and what they mean
Through language we seek to find efficient ways of expressing ourselves and communicating with others. English is an evolving language and has been refined so that there are only seven (primary) interrogative categories [1]:
Where PLACE (of which whence (source) and whither (destination) are derivatives)
What THING
Why REASON
How MANNER
When TIME
Who PERSON (of which whom and whose are derivatives)
Our language has developed over hundreds of years to reflect the things we most need to ask. Therefore, it is logical that we should look to the first principles of English when we approach a problem. It is a simple concept, but all too often we forget to ask each of the seven basic questions. Or, in reference to a given problem or we do not frame the questions properly. If we do not ask the right questions (the most important questions) we are unlikely to come up with the right answers.
Language does not affect only our communication; it also affects our thinking. Philosophers have long debated as to whether our thinking is truly free or if we are constrained linguistically. For example Ludwig Wittgenstein said:
“The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”
Ludvig Wittgenstein
Benjamin Lee Whorf went as far as to say that our native tongue limits the way we think and act, in what he referred to as the ‘principle of linguistic relativity’. At the other end of the spectrum, Jerry Fodor proposes that there is a ‘language of thought’ encoded in the mind that transcends linguistic communities and has been the basis for the common elements in various languages.
Whatever our philosophical persuasion, science shows that as we observe, absorb and remember things. We create neural pathways in our brains that speed up thinking, recall and decision-making and that language becomes an intrinsic part of this process.
For example, in languages such as French, Spanish and German where objects have a gender assignment, there is an association built into the language. This means speakers are more likely to think of those items as being either more masculine or feminine in nature (whereas in reality they are non-gender specific), than in the case of a language such as English that does not have gender assignment.
Knowing the power of association that words may have can be very useful. For example psychiatrists have used this knowledge to explore further how our minds work and help to diagnose and treat people with psychological issues.
In another vein Tony Buzan has applied these principles more broadly in his writing on memory techniques. He also used them to develop his Mind Mapping technique of note taking.
But as our brains make certain connections and associations we can all too easily be led down a certain train of thought or have our thinking constrained. As George Orwell noted:
“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
George Orwell
Interviewers who want to get a certain answer have exploited this fact and – at the most extreme level – hypnotists and advertisers have used the persuasive nature of language to influence our actions and decisions.
Freeing our thinking
This kind of constraining influence is something we want to avoid when thinking strategically. It is important to be able to ‘think outside the box’. Therefore, we need something that helps us to be creative, and yet also be comprehensive and second nature to us.
This is why using interrogatives, the Wh-words in English, is so useful. They are tools that we already have at our disposal. As they are open questions, we can use them to think freely and not just to get a closed ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. This is also why journalists and law enforcers – seeking to get the facts of a situation and avoid leading questions – have employed ‘the 5 Ws’ question technique.
The evolution of the 5Ws
It was found that the ‘5 Ws’ was not complete without the ‘H’ of ‘How?’ and therefore they became six questions. The final ‘W’ of ‘Which?’ (that deals with the idea of selection) is also important to us in planning because we need to consider the choice between courses of action. This is why The Right Questions makes use of all the seven interrogatives.
Therefore, The Right Questions expands on what we already know; words that we have in our language already. This subconscious knowledge of the system is what makes it profound. We do not need to invent words or use jargon to explain it. The basis of The Right Questions is a framework that already exists in English and is amplified so we can apply it specifically to matters of importance, such as personal effectiveness and business strategy.
If you want the right answers you have to start with the right questions
About The Right Questions
The Right Questions is for leaders who want coaching towards greater clarity, purpose and success. We are all leaders (whether we know it or not) as we all have influence. So the question is, what are you doing with your influence?
Wherever you are on your leadership journey, I hope that you find resources on this site to help you on the next leg of your quest. Even if that is just the inspiration to take one small step in the right direction, then that is a success. If you can take pleasure in learning and travelling as you go, then so much the better.
I love to serve people, helping them unlock their potential, empowering them as leaders, and coaching them to achieve their goals. Please get in touch and let me know how I can support you!
How to Use the SCARF Model to Improve Social Interactions
Can you remember a time when your pulse was racing at work? Perhaps you recall a moment when you went red in the face in a meeting or needed to stop and take some deep breaths. Maybe you felt tense when being told of a task or broke a sweat trying to beat a deadline.
These physical reactions are common and were most likely linked to emotions such as fear, frustration, or anger. Most people experience this kind of agitated psychological state at some time or another in their jobs. These physiological, fight-or-flight responses, still manifest even though relatively few people’s professions involve a threat to their physical person.
And that can be a problem as these experiences can have a negative impact on cognition. Something that feels unfair can derail you. Feeling isolated can reduce productivity. Being disempowered undermines creativity and decision-making. Concerns about job security make it hard to concentrate.
So why does this fight-or-flight response kick in and what can we do about it?
Fight or flight, reward, and threat
The fight-or-flight response was first described by Walter Bradford Canon in 1915. It is also referred to as, the fight, flight, freeze or fawn response, but the basic physiological and neurological aspects are the same in all cases.
Our neurobiology dictates our responses to external stimuli. In other words, our brains are wired to react in certain ways in certain circumstances. If we perceive a situation to be rewarding, we will act in one way, if we find it threatening, we will respond in another.
The fight-and-flight reaction is primarily there to help us survive physical threats. This human behaviour is similar to many animal species’ responses and is triggered within the amygdala, one of the oldest parts of the brain (in evolutionary terms).
Interestingly (but often unhelpfully), even with the scarcity of sabre-tooth tigers in the office, these fight-or-flight responses are initiated by our social interactions. And the problem with this is the threat of amygdala hijack; where one part of the brain overrides the functions of other parts of the brain as it pumps stress hormones into the body.
Amygdala hijack happens when the amygdala interprets something as threatening and then sends a signal to the hypothalamus, the brain’s command centre. The hypothalamus then stimulates the sympathetic nervous system which activates the adrenal glands, pumping epinephrine (adrenaline) into the bloodstream. This adrenaline prompts physical effects such as expanded airways, an increased pulse and heightened heart pressure. Senses – such as sight and hearing – are sharpened and sweat glands are opened. The epinephrine also starts a release of glucose and other nutrients into the bloodstream.
These changes impact other parts of the brain. The frontal lobes, the areas of the brain that deal with reasoning, decision-making, planning and evaluating emotions, can be temporarily crippled. The amygdala overrides the frontal lobes if it perceives something as a significant threat. When this happens, our responses become more primal and less rational.
All these things prepare the body for action; to fight or to run away. This is useful if you are stepping into a boxing ring or up to compete in a race, but slightly problematic if you are stepping up to give a presentation or to meet a new client. So what can we do?
The best way to manage those physical symptoms is by taking some deep breaths. This will allow the initial flush of hormones to pass and for our rational minds to clear. Next, we can diagnose the cause of the symptoms by considering the social triggers.
The SCARF model summarises the main social circumstances that prompt reward or threat responses. The SCARF model was invented by David Rock, author of Your Brain at Work. David Rock developed the tool using the latest insights from neuroscience and psychology.
The letters in the SCARF model stand for:
Status
Certainty
Autonomy
Relatedness
Fairness
These are all concepts that can trigger feelings of reward or threat in social engagements.
We move away from what we perceive as threatening situations, either consciously or unconsciously. These are the ones that trigger the fight-or-flight response. By contrast, we are drawn towards situations of potential reward. So, the elements of the SCARF model prompt either toward or away behaviours, depending upon the context.
Here is a fuller explanation of each element in turn:
Status
Status is about where people feel they are in the pecking order. It is about power but also about recognition.
Certainty
Certainty is all about how well we feel we can predict the future. It relates to predictability in our lives and minimising unexpected changes.
Autonomy
Autonomy is the feeling of having choices and being empowered to make decisions. It makes us agents of change, rather than change being forced upon us.
Relatedness
Is about feeling safe in our relationships and is tied to concepts of trust and trustworthiness. We are drawn towards being connected with others and fear being isolated or ostracised.
Fairness
Fairness is how we feel about our exchanges and interactions and whether we consider them equitable.
Here is a painful personal experience explained using the SCARF model. It is one I can still vividly remember, as I was triggered across all the zones of the SCARF framework. It happened when I was a young Army Officer.
I was a Lieutenant on a training exercise, and even though I did not have my own platoon or troop at that point I had been preparing to lead a team for the deployment. Initially, for the exercise, I had not been given a defined role, so I worked to find areas where I could add value and take responsibility.
Then, just before the final phase of the exercise, my commanding officer – who obviously had formed a low opinion of me – informed me that I was not going to be a platoon leader. Instead, I was assigned as the deputy of a section (a smaller team). When I received the news, I was shocked. My whole body went tense, and red mist clouded my thoughts.
SCARF diagnosis:
My status was undermined. I am not obsessed with rank or position but here I suffered the shame of being publicly demoted. My line manager had deliberately pushed me down. I felt demeaned.
The certainty I had about what I was doing was taken away. The role I had been preparing for was taken from me and I even started to fear for my future in the military. If this was how my senior officer rated me, what was I even doing as an officer in the army?
My autonomy was eroded. The plans I’d made had been trashed and now my decision-making capacity had been reduced further due to being put in a junior position.
My relatedness to my colleagues and those in my team was also negatively impacted. Everyone could see what had happened and this made relationships uncomfortable. It was particularly awkward for the junior manager who now nominally had me under his authority. The whole team dynamic was undermined.
And the whole situation went against fairness. I did not feel I deserved to be humiliated in this way. It was also not fair on the team I was been assigned to.
At the time I wanted to either punch someone or run away. Fortunately, circumstances intervened, and I was called away to other duties, but the whole experience knocked my self-confidence in a way that took a long time to recover. I was left feeling bitter and stressed.
Use the SCARF model to understand and improve your social interactions
So next time you step into a social situation apply your neuroleadership (your new understanding of neuroscience and leadership) and remember the SCARF model. How do the various social interactions make you feel? How are you drawn towards some people and away from others?
If you feel your body moving into fight-or-flight mode (but you are not physically threatened), take a few deep breaths and then diagnose the cause. Is your status threatened? Do you feel a lack of certainty, or perhaps reduced autonomy? Is the situation eroding your relatedness or your feelings of fairness? What might you do to restore your balance?
If you are a manager planning a meeting with a subordinate, consider how the SCARF elements might impact the other person. Make sure the person feels valued (status), unflustered (certainty), that they have choices (autonomy), they are part of a team (relatedness) and are being treated well (fairness)
If you want the right answers you have to start with the right questions
About The Right Questions
The Right Questions is for leaders who want coaching towards greater clarity, purpose and success. We are all leaders (whether we know it or not) as we all have influence. So the question is, what are you doing with your influence?
Wherever you are on your leadership journey, I hope that you find resources on this site to help you on the next leg of your quest. Even if that is just the inspiration to take one small step in the right direction, then that is a success. If you can take pleasure in learning and travelling as you go, then so much the better.
I love to serve people, helping them unlock their potential, empowering them as leaders, and coaching them to achieve their goals. Please get in touch and let me know how I can support you!
I am a professional facilitator, coach, and communicator. I have given talks to crowds of hundreds of people and presentations to board members, politicians, senior military, and even royalty. People are therefore somewhat surprised that historically my most significant hurdle to public speaking was confidence.
This is not the case now and, due to my work, people assume I am extroverted. But in terms of character, I am actually introverted. Although I enjoy social interactions, I find them draining and I must harness my energy to be outgoing, upbeat and take centre stage. It doesn’t come naturally.
What’s more, since childhood, I have harboured unhelpful fears of looking foolish in front of people and an overactive imagination that provides me with hundreds of ways that I could be shamed if I were foolish enough to try to stand up and talk to a crowd, especially to a bunch of strangers!
An experience that challenged my assumptions about public speaking
I used to think some people were born confident. I used to believe some folks were just natural public speakers. One personal experience helped to change these assumptions.
It happened at a time when I was working backstage during a large event. It was taking place in a theatre in London’s West End. The theatre could seat over a thousand people, and it was packed. I was running all the back-stage operations which included helping presenters with any technical support.
The speaker that day was well-known and very highly regarded. I had seen him many times, on various stages, speaking to audiences of hundreds, sometimes thousands, much as he was about to do now. I had watched in awe as he strode about, effortlessly unpacking intellectual themes and making them understandable to us mere mortals.
It was seconds before he was due to go on stage, the music was queuing up ready for his entrance. In the dark wings of the theatre, between props and backdrops, I stepped up to him to do a final check on his microphone. As I drew close, I could hear him whispering to himself, head down, hands fluttering about. He glanced up, catching my eye and faltering for a moment. I did not know whether he was doing vocal exercises, practising part of his talk or reciting some positive affirmations, but I could see that he was nervous. I was shocked; I literally couldn’t believe it. Him? Nervous?
One way or another it certainly did not seem to impact him. I finished with the microphone, and he stood up straight, faced the stage and walked into the blinding lights to loud applause. Seconds later the audience was silent and hanging onto every word conveyed by his steady voice. And all I could do was stand dumbfounded backstage thinking, hang on, that guy had stage fright moments ago! This giant of public speaking! And you know what? It was one of the most liberating of little moments I have had the privilege to witness.
Ok, what did I learn?
Confidence is a frame of mind that you can develop
You don’t have to be born confident to be a good public speaker. In fact, research shows that you don’t need to have innate self-belief, it can be developed. Neuroscientist Dr Ian Robertson, author of How Confidence Works, has identified that confidence comes down to two core beliefs. He calls these ‘can do’ and ‘can happen’. In other words, you need both the belief that you can do something coupled with the idea that an action can happen and affect the external world.
In this context, you can build both beliefs. For example, have you ever had a conversation with more than one other person at the same time? Most likely you have, even if just around the dinner table. Well done, you have just proven to yourself that you can speak to groups of people.
Another thought. Have you ever said something that someone has found interesting or changed the way someone has thought or behaved? If so, then you also have proof that your communication does have an impact. It can happen. What you say matters to people; you just need to find your audience.
The more instances you can think of to reinforce both the can do and can happen the better. These will strengthen your self-belief. Then build on this confidence; start small and build up. For example, talk to a small group of people you know, just for a few minutes. It could just be a joke or a short story. By doing this you build experience and confidence to increase the size of the audience and length of what you are going to say.
Similarly, with confidence, people often assume that courage is innate, something some people are born with. But this is also a false assumption. As Winston Churchill said:
“Fear is a reaction. Courage is a decision.”
Winston Churchill
We all feel fear. It is a natural psychological reaction to certain situations. This is the in-built fight, flight or freeze response which primarily helps us when we face physical danger. The problem is, the mind has the same response to perceived social danger, as we experience during public speaking.
This can lead to amygdala hijack, the situation where more primal parts of the brain override our more rational brain. This leads to several things but notably that we cannot think straight, and our body is flooded with adrenaline. Therefore, in the case of public speaking, we are likely to forget what we want to say (because we can’t access the pre-frontal cortex), our hearts beat faster, and we start to sweat.
And what is the best way to deal with this? Breathe. Breathing exercises, such as the 5:5:5 technique (breathe in for a count of 5, hold for 5 and out for 5) are proven ways to help manage stress responses.
The other thing is to change your mindset. As comedian Deborah Frances-White points out in her excellent (and highly entertaining) TED talk, you need to stop thinking like prey when you get on stage and take the attitude of the predator. You need to own the space; boldly stalk around the stage while maintaining eye contact with your audience. Do not shrink behind the lectern or hide at the back of the stage.
And fake it until you make it because, as Amy Cuddy tells us, our physiology impacts our psychology. In other words, even if you don’t feel self-assured, forcing your body into a confident posture (e.g. standing tall, maintaining eye contact and not crossing your arms) will actually change your mindset. You will start to feel more confident.
Communication happens when we connect with people
The final thing to help your confidence and courage is to remember that audience is just made up of people like you. As Brené Brown (author of Dare to Lead) says:
“People, people, people are just people, people, people.”
It doesn’t matter what title they hold, or how rich or famous they are, they are all just human. Many of our assumptions, like those I had of the speaker in my story, are wrong.
Brené Brown also points out why we feel nervous when public speaking; because we make ourselves vulnerable. But that is an opportunity. Vulnerability gives us an opportunity to be authentic. And guess what, other normal humans also feel afraid at times, so these shared feelings can help create empathy. Acknowledging our fear can even help build rapport with an audience.
So, when you look at the audience remember they are like you. If it helps, picture them as school kids, but no matter what, remember that they certainly were all school kids before they were whatever they are now. People are just people.
The positive psychology of public speaking
Do I still get nervous? Yes. Can I effectively manage those feelings and be a successful public speaker? Yes. Can you too? Again, yes.
Mark Twain is accredited with saying:
“There are two types of speakers: those that are nervous and those that are liars”.
So don’t worry about being worried. You can build confidence. If you choose, you can be courageous. You can use your feelings to build a deeper connection with your audience.
But you do need to practice. So, think of an opportunity where you can stretch yourself a little and develop your speaking. Is nothing specific coming up? Then think of an anecdote, an experience from your life. Pick something fun! Take a few minutes to craft that story, maybe write it down and then say it out loud to yourself. Look at your body language; force yourself to look and sound assured. By doing so you are programming your brain; pre-wiring synapses and setting the conditions of confidence. Then hold onto the story and wait for an opportunity to share it with others.
And if you would like to read more about public speaking do take a look at:
If you want the right answers you have to start with the right questions
About The Right Questions
The Right Questions is for leaders who want coaching towards greater clarity, purpose and success. We are all leaders (whether we know it or not) as we all have influence. So the question is, what are you doing with your influence?
Wherever you are on your leadership journey, I hope that you find resources on this site to help you on the next leg of your quest. Even if that is just the inspiration to take one small step in the right direction, then that is a success. If you can take pleasure in learning and travelling as you go, then so much the better.
I love to serve people, helping them unlock their potential, empowering them as leaders, and coaching them to achieve their goals. Please get in touch and let me know how I can support you!
How to Work out Your Personality Type with the Big 5 (OCEAN) Model
What are your personality traits or preferences? Do you have the right personality type for the job you are doing? How can the Big 5 or OCEAN model help you?
This is a potentially controversial question. Popular culture tends to support the idea that we can do anything we want to if we put our minds to it. However, psychological research suggests that we can be better suited to specific roles. And this is an insight that many individuals and organisations put to good use.
For example, NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) use the science of personality types to help select astronauts for specific missions. NASA use questionnaires to understand the psychological profiles of potential team members and have done extensive research into which personality types are best suited to different sorts of assignment.
The questionnaires NASA employ use the Big 5 personality traits. The Big 5 (also known as the OCEAN model) includes measuring openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (more on these later).
Space age psychology for today’s challenges – why we need to understand personality
So, what about life and work beyond space exploration? Is personality important? We might not be aspiring astronauts, but the evidence suggests that the psychology of personality types is important no matter what we do.
I am a great believer in self-discovery as foundational to fulfilment in life. And once again I am not alone in this. From Socrates to Stephen R. Covey, the history of personal development emphasises the importance of self-awareness.
Whether you are an individual, trying to find your vocation, or a manager, wanting to find the right person for a role, this means that the subject of personality type is an important one.
Many people have taken personality tests of one sort or another and there are other popular tools out there. The best-known is probably the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) and this was the first such test I took. But, due to my experience with these tests – and the weight of scientific evidence – I don’t recommend MBTI. You can find out why in my article Much Too Jung (The Problem with Myers-Briggs Personality Tests).
I have utilised many psychometric tests in my work, and I now prefer using the Big 5 (OCEAN) model. The Big 5 is the preferred standard test of most psychologists and has been adopted by many employers (such as NASA). The OCEAN model emphasises personality traits rather than types.
Is personality more about traits or types?
The difference between traits and types reflects the distinction between analogue and digital. Traits are analogue as they measure aspects of character on a spectrum. For example, we might be more or less of a team player. The Big 5 (OCEAN) model uses this approach to understanding personality.
Personality type theory is more digital, saying that some either is or isn’t of a certain sort. For example, a test using the ‘type’ approach will say you are either extroverted or introverted. It does not illustrate to what degree you are either introverted, or extroverted, and the same with other traits. In other words, it is less nuanced. The Myers-Briggs test uses this more binary approach of typology.
One downside with type theory is that you can start to identify as a fixed kind of character and, even worse, start to think of that type as either positive or negative. This is unhelpful. Personality traits are about preferences and these preferences are not necessarily good or bad, they are not ethical judgements. Also, personality, traits and preferences are not fixed. They can change situationally and over time. For example, I have grown more confident over the years; that element of my personality is not fixed.
Therefore, in my experience, there is no one ‘right’ personality type, but different people thrive in different situations. And the science backs me up on this. That is why the psychological study of personality and the science of identifying personality types has grown in scope and importance.
What is the right type of personality for your organisation?
Here it is also worth noting that businesses can fall into a trap, thinking they need to broadly recruit people with a specific personality type. This is harmful, at the macro level, as businesses (and society as a whole) benefit from having a healthy mix of personality types. Diverse personalities provide cognitive diversity and people who can thrive in the diverse roles that every team or tribe needs.
For example, NASA, at the organisational level, will employ a wide range of people, not dependent on personality type. Even astronauts are diverse in character. Personality is taken into account for specific missions but that is not the only selection criteria (by a long way!) And remember, the astronauts are not the only part of the operational team; it’s just that the larger part of the team is stuck on Earth.
So, be careful when using personality profiling to help pick a team. But to see how it can help us, let’s take a closer look at the psychological model that NASA uses.
What are the Big 5 personality types and what does OCEAN stand for?
The Big 5, which stands for five personality traits (also known by the acronym OCEAN) was developed by a series of researchers but is most closely associated with the work of Paul Costa and Robert McCrae. The 5 traits of the OCEAN model are:
O – Openness
C – Conscientiousness
E – Extroversion
A – Agreeableness
N – Neuroticism
The traits are generally measured by the use of psychometric tests (questionnaires that indicate preferences) and the scores are expressed on a scale or spectrum. There are many tests available, some even for free. But, whether paid or not, make sure whatever test you use comes from a recognised provider with proven credentials if you want to trust the results.
One free resource I often use is https://openpsychometrics.org where you can find a variety of tests including the Big 5 model.
The Big 5 (OCEAN) personality traits explained
Here is an explanation of each of the Big 5 traits:
Openness
Openness is the degree to which people are open to new experiences and ideas, being creative, having imagination and creativity. Less ‘open’ people prefer routine and deep, specialist knowledge.
Conscientiousness
The more conscientious a person is, the more organised, disciplined, and hardworking they tend to be. Less conscientious people tend to be more impulsive and disorganised.
Extroversion
Extroverts get more of their energy from external stimuli. They tend to be gregarious, outgoing, positive, enthusiastic, and assertive. Introverts get their energy more internally. They tend to think more before speaking, prefer fewer (but deeper) relationships and retreat from others to recharge.
Agreeableness
A more agreeable person is more likeable, cooperative, and trusting. They tend to be warm and good-natured. Less agreeable people are less trusting, more critical, and often prefer to work alone.
Neuroticism
The higher a person is on the neuroticism scale, the more they worry. They tend towards negativity and are more prone to depression and anxiety. Less neurotic people are calm, even-tempered, and more secure in themselves.
Applying the Big 5 personality traits – an example
By way of an example (and to show any given trait is not good or bad) we can once again consider NASA astronaut selection for different missions. Let’s take one trait, that of agreeableness in this instance.
For a mission of a long duration, with people stuck in close confines such as a trip to Mars, you want people higher on the agreeableness spectrum. That is because they are more likely to work well as a team (and not rub each other up the wrong way!) This is similar to the type of person selected to serve for long durations in Antarctic research stations.
By contrast, someone completing a solo mission might be better off having a lower agreeableness rating as they will need to be happy working on their own, with no company, for long periods.
So here we can see it is not that agreeableness is good or bad. Where someone lands on the spectrum just indicates tasks or roles they are better suited to, but this is situational and just one factor to take into consideration.
Example of the Big 5 Personality Traits for selecting team roles
I put this knowledge to good use when working with a team fulfilling a security contract there were two main roles that team members needed to play.
The first was surveillance. This was generally done by small teams who often had to stay together, in a confined space, doing monotonous work for extended times. Here the preference was for characters that showed high conscientiousness, as they tended to be more disciplined and enjoyed routine. They also had high levels of agreeableness, meaning that they were less likely to rub people up the wrong way when stuck together for long periods. The best operators tended to be slightly more introverted as well.
The second role was speaking to people to gather information. Here the preference was for more extroverted characters with high openness scores. These sorts of team members enjoyed the outgoing role and the new experiences created by meeting lots of people. By contrast to the surveillance specialists, these operatives had lower conscientiousness ratings – meaning they were more impulsive – and did not need to have the same high agreeableness scores.
How the Big 5 (and other personality tests) can help or hinder us
As we have seen, the study of personality types has become important for NASA, especially as they try to answer the tricky question: who are the right sorts of people to send on a mission to Mars? But how about us? Why should we bother trying to quantify our personality?
Taking a personality test, especially one using the preferred Big 5 (OCEAN) model, can be beneficial in aiding self-awareness. Traits show preferences and help us to identify our strengths and weaknesses. It can help inform us of roles that we might prefer and excel in (and others where we might struggle).
But personality is not fixed. Therefore, we must be careful not to identify too closely with personality types as this can get us into an unhealthy fixed mindset. This is why we focus on traits. Each trait sits on a spectrum that can change with circumstance and time. We also need to be careful not to think of our personality as good or bad. And, if we feel our personality has room for improvement, then the evidence shows that we can change.
People change and teams need to be diverse. Therefore, we need to be very careful when using personality tests to select people in an organisation. Most organisations require various personalities to thrive, and personality is just one factor – among many – to consider in individual and team performance. But you can use personality profiles, to work with individuals, to make sure they are in the best role for them – a place where they can thrive and contribute using all of their strengths.
If you want the right answers you have to start with the right questions
About The Right Questions
The Right Questions is for leaders who want coaching towards greater clarity, purpose and success. We are all leaders (whether we know it or not) as we all have influence. So the question is, what are you doing with your influence?
Wherever you are on your leadership journey, I hope that you find resources on this site to help you on the next leg of your quest. Even if that is just the inspiration to take one small step in the right direction, then that is a success. If you can take pleasure in learning and travelling as you go, then so much the better.
I love to serve people, helping them unlock their potential, empowering them as leaders, and coaching them to achieve their goals. Please get in touch and let me know how I can support you!