1. Myers-Briggs Personality Types for Negotiation
College of Law Research Center
Workshop
Spring 2010

2. Myers-Briggs Dichotomies
Four dichotomies
Extraversion / Introversion (E/I)
Sensing / Intuition (S/N)
Thinking / Feeling (T/F)
Judging / Perceiving (J/P)

3. Test

4. 16 Personality Types ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP
ENFP
ENTP
ESTJ
ESFJ
ENFJ
ENTJ

5. Population Distribution

6. Temperament
Temperament predisposes us to certain ways of thinking , understanding, conceptualizing and acting.

7. Extraversion
More interested in the external world of people and things
They derive meaning from connections with the external environment
They maximize interactions

8. Introversion
Interested more in the internal world of ideas and concepts
Enjoy solitude and introspection
Prefer to withdrawal from external activities

9. 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

10. Intuition
Emphasizes concepts, theories, relationships and possibilities
Values inspiration

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Thinkers/Feelers at Work
Thinkers may see feelers as illogical, too emotional or trying too hard to please
With thinkers: Be organized, consider cause and effect, pros and cons, focus on consequences, appeal to fairness
Feelers may see thinkers as insensitive or distant or self-involved
With feelers: mention points of agreement, focus on their core values, appreciate their contributions, state legitimacy of their feelings, discuss emotional impact of situation

18. 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

19. The Article
The following is based on the article: Peters, Don, Forever Jung” Psychological Type Theory, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Negotiation, 42 Drake Law Review 1 (1993)

20. WHY?

21. Negotiation
Negotiation strategies require behaviors that many people may be adept with but
they may also require behaviors that many are not drawn to naturally

22. Negotiation
In analyzing your own negotiating skill in the context of MBTI what specific behaviors do you use, or fail to use

23. Why?
Type Theory suggest behaviors strongly connected to a preference may become well-developed and comfortable making it harder for persons to perform tasks associated with the opposite scale without conscious thought and substantial practice.

24. Adversarial/Problem Solving
Gain Maximizing
Problem Solving
Fair deal making

25. Adversarial Strategies
Proceed in a linear fashion
Negotiators attempt to induce, persuade or deceive other into deviating from the positions
Threats and attacks are used
Inquires regarding facts and issues are evaded or shared reluctantly

26. Problem Solving Strategies
Involves a cognitive commitment to searching for fair solutions
Flexible
Non-linear
First indentifies underlying needs
Looks for solutions that maximize potential for all parties
Information is used to generate understanding about each other’s interests

27. Sensing/Intuitive
The sensing/intuitive preference exerts the most influence on legal negotiations.
¾ of the general population are sensors
In this study about 55 % of the law students were intuitives.
*Peters, Don, Forever Jung” Psychological Type Theory, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Negotiation, 42 Drake Law Review 1 (1993)

28. Sensors
The sensing preference is inclined to value concrete, detailed, factual information that can be verified by the five senses
This tendency can influence attitudinal and behavioral orientations that may be directly related to important components of an adversarial strategy that they may cause sensors to favor this approach.

29. Sensors
Sensors tend to prefer an adversarial strategy because it tends to unfold in a structured and easily tracked and linear fashion.
Adversarial approaches focus on limited or fixed resources and single bargaining dimension.
Sensors typically like to measure clearly and concretely what has been done and what steps remain to be accomplished.

30. Sensors
Sensors in an effort to gather more facts tend to ask more questions
Focus on whether a settlement zone exists between articulated positions.
Sensors tend to pursue adversarial strategies that “limit negotiators to searching for and using information within its linear framework.”

31. Sensors
While sensors may avoid problem solving strategies they use adversarial strategies effectively
They are good at articulating and justifying positions
They tend to be well prepared
Use technically precise language
Focus on detail helps them justify positions

32. Sensors
Sensors frequently feel uncomfortable with a problem solving approach
Sensors more comfortable with the immediate, the concrete and the practical
Sensors better at recognizing when the opponent is blocking

33. Sensors Sensors are naturally inclined to focus on the specifics.
This helps them avoid imprecise or ineffective articulations of the problem.
“Sensors deal with facts and details of situations …. But rarely implicates the meaning and possibilities that could be gleaned from them.”
But, Deadlock may result if the compromise can’t be reached.

34. Sensors/Intuitives
Sensors are less effective at articulating problem-solving strategies
Problem solving strategies focus on general concerns rather than specific details.
Problem solving proposals get to specifics more slowly while parties elaborate their needs
Sensors may get frustrated with this method

35. Intuitives
Problem solving strategies used by Intuitives are much less structured.
Focus on identifying needs
Less focus on step by step behavioral patterns such as reciprocal concessions and information exchange
Abstract search for interests and solutions
But Intuitives sometimes don’t pay sufficient attention to the details

36. Intuitives A female ENFP wrote: A male INTP wrote:
I … am horrible with figures (thus the J.D. as opposed to the M.D.), and when I was hit with percentages … my brain… slowed considerably and I lost my train of thought
A male INTP wrote:
Hell, I’m the worst numbers person there is …. I don’t want to talk numbers. Give me some abstract solutions, then I’ll be on cloud nine. We can hash out the details later.

37. Intuitives/Sensors
Proposed solutions in problem solving strategy should initially emphasize general concerns rather than specific details
Articulating proposals in problem solving strategy effectively requires behaviors inconsistent with the natural tendency of sensors to focus on specific details.
Emphasis on general concerns rather than specific details

38. Thinking/Feeling
Thinkers emphasize logical and impersonal aspects of negotiation
Impersonal form of assertiveness
Usually prefer an adversarial approach
Competing to maximum gain
Cooperation based on legitimate interests of others is more difficult for thinkers

39. Thinkers
Not focusing on the needs of others is consistent with the impersonal decision making tendencies of thinkers
Focusing on the interests of others involves dealing with emotional issues
Thinkers tend to respond to attacking comments with strongly phrased counter attacks - this intensifies conflict and my lead to impasse

40. Feelers Feelers are naturally attracted to problem-solving strategies
Feelers prefer harmony and agreement
Do not favor a winner take all strategy
Feelers more concerned about their relationship with other negotiators

41. Feelers
Feelers tend to give in to impersonally assertive competitive behaviors
They tend to neglect one’s own concerns to satisfy another’s needs
May make undue concessions to avoid conflict
Feelers may not be effective when dealing with an adversarial opponent

42. Feelers Feelers are usually good at ‘active listening’
This can facilitate cooperation
Active listening is an effective way to deal with strong emotions
Feelers have greater sensitivity to relational aspects of personal interactions. This helps them monitor process issues (process refers to the way negotiations unfold rather than the intrinsic merits of the issues discussed.)

43. Judging/Perceiving
Judging/Perceiving scale can be seen as closure/spontaneity
Judgers want to make decisions – get things done
Judgers favor an adversarial strategy
Judgers like to control the flow of information
Judgers favor an adversarial approach that defines and orders issues, while the problem solving approach seeks to address the needs and interests of the parties.

44. Judging Extensively prepare Judgers more inclined to plan and schedule
Stick rigidly to plans (stand firm) (sometimes convince themselves of the rightness of their view despite the empirical evidence
Judgers attempt to control
Schedules, agenda, others, (one way communication)

45. Judgers Judgers tend to become frustrated with a lack of progress
Frustration may lead to threats
Threats are sometimes used prematurely and haphazardly.
Threats made without due consideration are usually a negotiating error

46. Perceivers
Perceivers more comfortable with a problem solving approach avoid commitment while advancing proposals and solutions
Remaining uncommitted helps insure that the proposals and solution intersect with the needs of all parties
It promotes refining and improving suggestions to provide optimal mutual benefit.

47. Perceivers
Tend more adept at generating alternative ways of completing tasks
This adeptness correlates well with a problem solving approach
Perceivers always want to learn more
Perceivers however have to be careful about not revealing too much
Blocking a question by responding to a question with a question comes naturally to a perceiver

48. Perceiving
While perceivers always want more information – their tendency to be spontaneous or acceptance of ad hoc approaches sometimes leads to acting without careful consideration.
Perceivers preferring to act spontaneously have greater difficulty preparing and planning.
This is more a problem in adversarial situation than problem solving

49. Extravert/Introvert
Extraverts enjoy verbal interactions involved in negotiating
Extraverts enjoy working with teammates
Extraverts are more likely to seek out expert testimony
Extraverts are comfortable with stating their case in an adversarial strategy
But also comfortable with stating clients needs in a problem solving strategy

50. Extraverts
Extraverts can error in rushing out an offer while there is still uncertainty of valuation
(Some tendency to talk and not listen)
Speak before developing thoughts
May inadvertently leak damaging information
May over answer questions and provide too much information

51. Extraverts
While extraverts may be inclined to over share this is in fact an important aspect of a problem solving strategy
Brainstorming
Discussing ideas that aren’t yet fully developed without worry comes more naturally to extraverts
Good for preparation
Extraverts seek feedback

52. Introverts Non-talkative (better listeners usually) Internal
Nondisclosure of information (selectively disclose information)
Better blocking strategies
Also recognize sooner when the opposition is blocking
But not as good at thinking on their feet (being spontaneous)
Tend not to be team players

53. Introvert/Extraverts
Sometimes clash in style
Extraverts become frustrated with introverts slower responses
Introverts get frustrated with the quantity of questions from an extraverted opponent
Extraverts interrupt more
Extraverts feel stonewalled/Introverts pressured

54. Lessons
A simple cognitive understanding doesn’t mean that those behaviors can be produced
Practice
Identifying and evaluating students

55. Example
[A male ISTJ] talked so much I thought he was an extravert, but he says he can only do that if he is solidly prepared…. This taught me that my only hope is to spend time planning what I will do, and considering what could possible happen, if I am to compete with the natural extraverts. (female INTP)

56. Student Comment
Because I am a judger, it is without fail that I have an intense urge that I come to closure during negotiations. (male ESFJ)

57. Student Comment
In the past, I was aware of what I was feeling and its cause but I did not know how to respond in a way that did not add to the problem. Now I am learning how to use ‘I’ messages and process comments and it’s wonderful because it gives me a chance to defeat my self-perpetuating cycle of ineffective negotiating. (female ESFJ)

58. Student Comment
My inattention to detail affected my negotiations the most. Knowing the weakness, I can work to overcome it by writing everything down… or by having a partner focus on details while I focus on main ideas …. (male INFP)

59. Student Comment
I always have a million thoughts and ideas running through my head when I work on any project. Concentrating and really hearing the other negotiator’s ideas is best accomplished by my knowing that I will repeat his/her positions and interests. (female INTJ)

60. Student Comment
I totally shut down the listening process. I attributed this to my strong judging preference…. [During the last exercise when my position was attacked] my first instinct was to shut down…. But I realized what I was about to do mentally and stopped. I changed my posture in the chair and made concerted effort to listen. (male ESTJ)

61. Student Comment
I was prone to revealing information unilaterally. I worked on [being silent] throughout the semester and became good at it. (male ESTJ)

62. The Article
Based on the article: Peters, Don, Forever Jung” Psychological Type Theory, The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Negotiation, 42 Drake Law Review 1 (1993)

63. The End