Myers-Briggs
Personality Types for
Negotiation
College of Law Research Center
Workshop
Spring 2010
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Myers-Briggs Dichotomies
• Four dichotomies
•
•
•
•
Extraversion / Introversion (E/I)
Sensing / Intuition (S/N)
Thinking / Feeling (T/F)
Judging / Perceiving (J/P)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Test
• http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgiwin/JTypes2.asp
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
16 Personality Types
ISTJ
ISFJ
INFJ
INTJ
ISTP
ISFP
INFP
INTP
ESTP
ESFP
ENFP
ENTP
ESTJ
ESFJ
ENFJ
ENTJ
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Population Distribution
http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/population-gender/
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Temperament
• Temperament predisposes us to certain ways
of thinking , understanding, conceptualizing
and acting.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Extraversion
• More interested in the external world of people
and things
• They derive meaning from
connections with the external
environment
• They maximize interactions
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Introversion
• Interested more in the
internal world of ideas and
concepts
• Enjoy solitude and
introspection
• Prefer to withdrawal from
external activities
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Intuition
• Emphasizes concepts, theories, relationships
and possibilities
• Values inspiration
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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 selfinvolved
• With feelers: mention points of agreement, focus on their core values,
appreciate their contributions, state legitimacy of their feelings, discuss
emotional impact of situation
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
WHY?
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Negotiation
• In analyzing your own negotiating skill in the
context of MBTI what specific behaviors do
you use, or fail to use
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Why?
• Type Theory suggest behaviors strongly
connected to a preference may become welldeveloped and comfortable making it harder
for persons to perform tasks associated with
the opposite scale without conscious thought
and substantial practice.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Adversarial/Problem Solving
• Adversarial
• Gain Maximizing
• Problem Solving
• Fair deal making
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.”
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
•
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Feelers
• Feelers are naturally attracted to problemsolving strategies
• Feelers prefer harmony and agreement
• Do not favor a winner take all strategy
• Feelers more concerned about their
relationship with other negotiators
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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.
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Lessons
• A simple cognitive understanding doesn’t
mean that those behaviors can be produced
• Practice
• Identifying and evaluating students
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
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)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
Student Comment
• I was prone to revealing information
unilaterally. I worked on [being silent]
throughout the semester and became good at it.
(male ESTJ)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
The Article
• Based on the article: Peters, Don, Forever
Jung” Psychological Type Theory, The MyersBriggs Type Indicator and Learning
Negotiation, 42 Drake Law Review 1 (1993)
Florida State University College of Law Research Center
The
End
Florida State University College of Law Research Center