Web Paper Title: "Myers Briggs, XYZ Leadership, and Team Roles" by David M. Boje, Ph.D. January 21, 2001 - COPYRIGHT ã David Boje, Inside the Leadership Box
January 21, 2001
RETURN TO MAIN M-B, XYZ Leadership Web Site
Find relation between M-B and your Leadership:
- Step 1 - Take M-B test
- Step 2 - Verify M-B type
- Step 3 - XYZ Leader Dimensions
- Step 4 - XYZ & 16 M-B Types
- Step 5 - XYZ Team Roles
- Step 6 - XYZ Decision Bias
- Step 7 - MB Spirit types
- Step 8 - MB & Philosophy types
- Step 9 - XYZ, MB & Enneagram
- Visit OUT OF THE BOX - Leadership Site
- Visit Boje's Home Page
- References and Links
- Appendix A - Frequencies of M-B Types
Please see Merlot Official Review and Rating of Out of the Box Leadership & this Myers Briggs Web Site - Scored EXCELLENT!
unique people visited "M-B, XYZ Leadership, and Team Roles" Web Site, many more than once Counter by http://www.digits.com
Offer: If anyone wants to collaborate in testing the X, Y, Z dimensions of Leadership in Figure 1 using narrative and survey methods, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In the 1950s a mother-daughter team created the first version of the The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) instrument for measuring a person's personality preferences, using four basic scales with opposite poles (dualities): (1) Extraversion/Introversion; (2) Sensate/iNtuitive; (3) Thinking/Feeling; and (4) Judging/Perceiving. The MBTI® was first developed by Isabel Briggs Myers (1897-1979) in collaboration with her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs. The combinations for 16 archetype personalities. I assume that if we understand our own archetype, and can have a deeper understanding and respect for the personality preferences of others, then we can be more effective leaders and team players. To take the Myers-Briggs (M-B) test, now, click Step 1. Once you know your scores, return here.
My contribution is to explain the basic 16 archetypes of the M-B test in Steps 2 to 9 of this website as they relate to leadership, teams, spirituality, Enneagram, and decision bias. For example in Step 2 we verify the M-B test results implications for team roles. Step 3 explains the basic X, Y, and Z leadership dimensions. Step 4 relates M-B types to those dimensions to reveal what types of situations and organization environments your personality will be most compatible. Step 5 we examine team roles, since recent theory and research suggest that it is not the traditional four quadrants of M-B that matter most (i.e. ST, NT, NF, and SF). Rather it is splitting out the S's by their J or P scores (explained in Step 5). In Step 6 we look at the leadership research that suggests what kinds of input, output and operational bias effects you need to consider given your leadership X, Y, Z profile and your associated M-B type. In Step 7, we examine the relation of M-B to types of spirituality, while in Step 8, we look at the relationship to various philosophies. Step 9, we get back to Jung's original project. That is to look at not just your main type (i.e. ENTJ) but at the more dynamic relationships between the main type, and various subtypes. To get at this, Step 9 correlates your M-B type with the Enneagram. M-B and Enneagram are two quite ancient typologies of leadership. Enneagram, more than M-B (in its test form) assumes that people have not one, but multiple personalities, which they are apt to manifest differently depending upon the security or stress of their environment.
Figure 1: X, Y, Z Leadership Dimensions
In my XYZ theory of leadership, each of the eight leader modes (displayed in figure 1) has two M-B archetypes, for a total of 16. What I would like you to do, after studying this web site, is based upon your M-B type (the 4 letter score you get from the test), figure out where you situate your leaderly personality on the X, Y, Z dimensions of leadership in Figure 1. There are examples presented in Tables several tables to help you in your decision in Step 5. Each has a listing of the 16 M-B types are hypothesized to correlate with the X, Y, and Z dimensions of leadership.
X Dimension - Transactional to transformational leadership, as studied by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). This is a classic dualism in leadership studies. Burns looked at modal thinking (the means over ends reasoning) in the early stages of development and held these leaders to be "transactional." Transactional leadership "requires a shrewd eye for opportunity, a good hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating" (Burns, 1978:169). A "transformational leader," on the other hand, "recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower... (and) looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower" (p. 4).
X - Are you more transactional or transformational in your leader personality, style and the organization situation you lead?
Y Dimension - From the Will to Server to the Nietzschean Will to Power. The Will to Power is specifically excluded from transaction and transformational leader theory by both Burns and Bass. I therefore treat it as a second dimension of leadership. It is quite silly study leadership as just a well to serve; many leaders pursue power, some are able to do good things with it, others are swallowed by power. Nietzsche wrote about Will-to-Power (WTP) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra (TSZ) as having something to do with the will to initiate and implement a goal as well as the more macro construct of Darwin's theory of natural section, the power to transform the inherited advantages from generation to generation (WTP #362). And WTP is also a Will to Truth (TSZ, pp. 28, 113). The WTP is a will to overcome the small people, "they are the superman's greatest danger" (TSZ, p. 287). And the superleader is not satisfied with the happiness of the greatest number of workers or consumers (TSZ, p. 287). The Super leaders sees the abyss with the eyes of an eagle and grasps the abyss of poverty and misery with the talons of an eagle (TSZ, p. 288).
Y- Are you more about will-to-serve or will-to-power in your leader personality, style and the organization situation you lead?
Z Dimension - From monophonic (single voice) narrative to (polyphonic) narrative. Some leaders cultivate one voice, their own, and others are more pluralistic, able to create polyphonic leadership.
First - there was one voice -In bureaucratic theater, there is mostly monologue. In bureaucratic leadership, for example, there is mostly monologue; other voices are there on the stage but forbidden to speak, or they can only be whispered, their words unhearable, drowned out by the one official narrator who is authorized to take center-stage and speak and speak some more. As Kirkeby (2000: 232) argues it is the right of power to narrate events, to declare them romantic, tragic, comedic, or ironic, and then of course make them all into a romantic narratives that fits the bureaucratic pension for monophonic (single voiced) influence. For any other voice to speak would be an act of bureaucratic espionage; certainly for the secretary to speak would be unthinkable rebellion.
Second - there were two voices - In the Quest two or more players take the stage, but it is rarely more than dialog. In dialogue the "I" and the "Other" take the stage and we hear voices, but little reflection. It is no longer the monologue of the I declaring the Other as villain. The Other gets to speak and be heard by the 'I."
Third - there were three voices - To me, this voice that Kirkeby describes is the same one discovered long ago by Adam Smith. Smith looked at global capitalism and say that without ethics events might well follow a logic of the market place that would not lead to ethical relations among buyer and seller, employer and employed, monopolist and entrepreneur. It is the internal spectator, the voice that speaks to us while observing the First and Second (the I and the Other) rehearse there dialogue on the stage in our mind's eye. And in this model, even two actors on the stage visualize the dialogue of the Triad in their own head, but as well in the head of the other.
Fourth - then there were four voices - This is a very special voice, one we sense is about to speak but does not, one that is on the stage but stays in the shadows. In the Fourth, "the event is never over and done with" (Kirkeby, 2000: 237). And with the about to speak voice of the Fourth, we are intuitively aware of the simulation and almost can here the polyphony of voices, a mob about to take storm the stage. We may hear a groan, a murmur, a mumbling sound, but we can never quite make out the words. We can sense somehow the bureaucratic machine, the quest journey, and even chaos itself are just mythic metaphors some people have speculated and articulated about the web of human events (web is yet another one, as it theater a metaphor). We sense the gap, and we know with one more step we will certainly fall into chaos. See Boje (2000c) for more on the multiple voices of leadership.
Z - Decide, how many voices you have, in your leadership personality, and in the situation of the organization you lead?
I begin with asking you take the on line M-B test (on line Step 1), then validate your score by reviewing its basic components in Step 2.
Proceed to Step 1 index - top of this page