ISFJ Personality Analysis
The interdisciplinary field of organizational behavior is becoming increasingly important in understanding today’s globalized economy and workforce diversity. Personality is one of the many variables that affect organizational behavior. Through the use of personality test, knowledge is gathered that allows individuals to become more efficient, engaged and ultimately more effective in the workplace. Upon taking the test I was identified as having ISFJ personality type and a SJ Temperament. This paper will discuss my personal results of the Myers-Brigg Personality Test, and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of my personality type and temperament. I will also discuss the impact these results have on the organization that I am currently in. Lastly results can be used to minimize conflict, and ultimately create an organization built on the principle of covenant and mutual accountability.
ISFJ Personality Analysis
Meyers-Brigg Personality Type: ISFJ & SJ Temperament
Prior to taking the Meyers-Brigg Personality Test, I experienced a little anxiety and I became somewhat self-conscious. At the time having a series of questions categorically determine my personality did not settle well with me. However, Type Talk at Work helped eliminate some of my anxiety when it stated that there are no good or bad types when it came to personality traits (Kroger, Rutledge, & Thuesen, 2002, p.5). The purpose of studying personality types is to objectively understand behaviors and tendencies that we may otherwise take offence to (Kroger et all., 2002). Likewise, recognizing that a good leader is able to evaluate internal strengths, and weakness (Fischer 2019) allowed me to opened my mind and prepared my heart to take the test. The test revealed that I have an ISFJ personality type and a SJ temperament. The statistical breakdown is as follows:
- Introvert (12%)
- Sensing (3%)
- Feeling (3%)
- Judging (62%)
The first letter of the 4-letter type determines how and where one gets their energy from: Extraverts vs. Introverts. After completing the Jung Typology test, it was surprising to learn that I fell into the Introvert category. Although the test stated that I only have a slight preference of introversion over extraversion, I considered myself to be an extravert because I am outgoing. After exploring the explanations found on humanmetrics.com, I can see how I fit in the introvert category. Introverts are described as having a source of energy in their own internal world instead of seeking stimulation from the outside. Based on this statement I would now describe myself as an introvert with some extrovert inclinations.
Being categorized as an introvert can be viewed as both a positive and negative trait as it pertains to my work-life. As an Anti-Terrorism Officer (ATO) in the United States Navy (USN), I am expected to interact with hundreds of people on a day-to-day basis. This can range from sitting in meetings to conducting training for the security forces on the base. This portion of my job is very exhausting as I often feel drained and in desperate need of a recharge. On the other hand introverts value-having time to think about what they are going to say or do before acting. Possessing this quality allows me to digest all the facts of cases that I am presented and make an informed and unbiased decision rationally.
The second letter of the 4-letter type refers to the method by which individuals perceive information (humanmetrics.com) and plays a role in communication style as well. The test revealed that I have marginal or no preference of sensing over intuition. Intuitive individuals often focus on the boring details and reading in between the lines. While those that are sensors focus on facts, clarity and practical matters. It may seem like decisions are the most important, but a decision is only as good as the understanding behind it. Based on my results I understand why there is very little preference between sensing and intuition.
As it pertains to my job, the very slight preference between sensing and intuition and possessing both traits is beneficial to me. As an ATO I am presented with a multitude of legal cases, and it is important that I focus in on the facts that are presented before me. As a sensor I value having time to gather and process information, instead of randomly making a decision. Contrarily, intuitive individuals enjoy figuring out how things work just for the sheer pleasure of doing so. As previously mentioned I am responsible for the training of security forces, this quality is beneficial to me as I am able to make training live for my sailors. Figuring out how new gear works allows me to thoroughly train my sailors and answer any questions they may have.
The third letter of the 4-letter type refers to the method by which individuals are able to make decisions and cope with emotions. Although the results yielded that I only have a marginal or no preference of feeling over thinking, I consider myself to be more of a thinker. While we all have feelings, there are significant differences in how we react to them and what role those feelings play in every area of our lives. Individuals with the thinking trait seek logic and rational arguments relying on their head rather than their heart. They tend to subdue and override their feelings with logic. In contrast those with the feeling trait usually follow their hearts and make decisions based on pure emotions.
Based on my marginal results, I can apply both the feeling and thinking traits to my current profession. I believe that it is important to note that there is a distinct difference between an operational ATO and a non-operational ATO. As a non-operational ATO I am more inclined to embrace the feeling trait. When there is no immediate danger I am able to put myself in others shoes and try to figure out how everyone is going to be affected by the decisions that I have to make. As an operational ATO I am unequivocally a thinker. I am focused on objectivity and rationality, prioritizing logic over emotions because people’s lives are literally in my hand. Many times I am forced to hide my feelings because I recognize efficiency as more important than cooperation.
The fourth and final letter of the 4-letter type refers to how individuals prefer to orient their lives. Additionally it reflects how a person implements the information they have gathered and processed. I believe this section affects all the others, showing how confident one is in their abilities. The test revealed that I have a distinct preference of judging over perceiving. Stephens (2017) suggests that those with the judging trait are often very assertive. I believe that assertive individuals are self-assured, even-tempered and resistant to stress, and they refuse to worry too much.
Often receiving praise from my Commanding Officer, as one that is structured, controlled, and deliberate; I wholeheartedly agree with the results of this portion of the personality test. Much like many members of the armed forces, I consider myself to be one that thrives on order. As an ATO being able to make decisions, without inducing stress is imperative to the good order and discipline of the command. I take the stress out of my life by developing a plan and implementing that plan. Having a plan does not mean that everything is always perfect, but it helps me to eliminate the anxiety that comes with not having a plan.
The aforementioned personality types are then broken down even further into 2 letter temperaments. Keirsey takes the 16 types and simplifies them into 4 temperaments that relate to other typologies as well as to characters from popular culture. Per the results of my test I fall into the SJ temperament, also referred to as “The Guardians”. Keirsey describes the SJ group’s primary objective as “Security Seeking”. The group includes the following types ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ, and ISFJ. Those that identify as ISFJ are described as “The Protectors”, thus I am a “Guardian Protector”.
Keirsey portrays the Guardian Protector as dedicated, self-sacrificing, preserving, thorough, respectful, and stabilizing individuals. If asked to describe myself, I honestly would use the previously mentioned adjectives. Having the SJ temperament is beneficial to me at works as it allows me to seek order, security and stability, thus allowing me to maintain the way of things. It is imperative that I am orderly, dependable and realistic because it could be the matter of life and death.
ISFJ’s are characterized above all by their desire to serve others (Humanmetrics, 2019). After reading that statement my mind immediately went to the scripture that states “For even the Son of Man did not come expecting to be served by everyone, but to serve everyone, and to give his life in exchange for the salvation of many” (Matthew 20:28). This speaks volumes to me as my strongest desire is to be more like Jesus. Prior to this class I never looked at the relationship with my subordinates as a covenant, sharing mutual accountability. After listening to the lecture I now understand that an organization that applies this idea will be greater because everyone is committed to serving and caring for everyone else.
Type Talk at Work
Personality is the combination of stable physical, behavioral, and mental characteristics that gives individuals their unique identity (Fugate, Kinicki, 2018, p.88). If personality at its core is what makes us different from one another, understanding others personality can help establish effective workplace relationships. Structuring our work relationships as that of a covenant align with typewatching which cuts right to the heart of building and maintaining effective teams (Kroger et all., 2002). Although at times it may seem like a daunting task learning to communicate with various personality types is essential to effective collaboration. As a leader this is extremely important to my success and that of my sailors. Recognizing this reminded me that everyone has something to contribute, all opinions should be valued and respected no matter rank.
A person’s personality is their input in the organizing framework and a fundamental driver of their behavior and performance at work. Understanding that there are 16 personality types and determining which of them fit those that I must work with and lead, can effectively allow me to plan out my interactions more carefully. Prior to reading Type Talk at Work I thought that I was a good leader, but I was not an effective leader. I can no longer adopt the one-size fits all approach, I must flex my leadership style. In doing so I strongly believe that miscommunications will decrease and productivity will be enhanced.
Thus after analyzing the results of my personality test, I have a better understanding that a worldview is an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual framework by which every person views reality, and applies meaning to every area of life (Fischer, 2019).
Site presentation (lesson 1)
Must use all references in paper
All of this information is essential to the analysis in the paper discussing how I will maximize the positive aspects of my personality in the workplace and in life
- BibleGateway. (n.d.). Retrieved January 24, 2019, from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 20:28&version=TPT
- Fischer, K., PhD. (2019, January 15). A Worldview Perspective on Organizational Behavior. Lecture. Retrieved January 14, 2019, from https://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-28060224-dt-content-rid-340435413_1/courses/BMAL500_B10_201920/Presentations/Module 1/index.html
- Jung Typology Test™. (n.d.). Retrieved January 17, 2019, from http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
- Keirsey, D. (n.d.). The Personality Page. Retrieved January 17, 18, from http://www.personalitypage.com/
- Kinicki, A., & Fugate, M. (2018).Organizational Behavior: A practical, problem-solving approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education
- Kroeger, O., Thuesen, J. M., & Rutledge, H. (2002). Type talk at work: How 16 personality types determine your success on the job. New York: Dell Pub.
- Stephens, S. (2017). Workplace culture: Personality plus or minus? How to succeed when ‘everybody’s different’. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 51(2), 135-138. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1879923082?accountid=12085