Successful Businessmen Are Born, Not Made. Which types are they?

[gzaw]

From http://www.socionikaskola.lv/en/soci...208-raksts-bnn

"She explains that a competent and talented manager’s motto sounds something like this: “I want, I can, I always have plenty of energy to do things.” People of this type cannot live any way other than managing something all the time. Such people easily handle problematic situations, they are practical thinkers. Also, they easily handle numbers and handle resource management.

Only six types of people out of sixteen can become successful businessmen. An entire set of in-born characteristic traits decide whether or not a person becomes a successful businessmen in the future. These traits are cultivated throughout a person’s life along with relevant knowledge and skills.



However, every other type of personality also has its own advantages and skills. Representatives of specific personality types that can potentially become good journalists, psychologists or photographers cannot become good managers. A charismatic teacher cannot work as a good financier.

“If a person learns his personality type, it would be easier to select the areas he can apply his skills to their full potential. Of course, many personality types can become managers of small companies. But is its important to keep in mind specific areas of expertise”, – she says.

She makes a reliable point. For example, ENTjs are the perfect stereotype of a businessman - restless, always wanting to work and manage, numbers-focused, etc. ENTjs are definitely born to succeed in business.

If an ISFp or an INFp had to compete against an ENTj in a general sphere of management and entrepreneurship, the ENTj will win most of the time. (Yes, there are the rare exceptions where if an ISFp were designing clothes or art and then selling it, then the ISFp would win).


What are the 6 types she's talking about?

At first I thought it was the 6 central quadra types (excluding ESI and IEI) which are EIE, LSI, SLE, LIE, SEE, and ILI from http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ss-Competition.

I definitely agree with most of them except for EIE and SEE.

If I were choosing the types, I'd replace EIE and SEE with LSE and SLI (because Te > Fe/Fi in business).

I may be wrong.

What types do you think make the best businessmen?

[krieger]

ENTjs are best at small scale economic ventures like used car salesmanship. their Te doesn't really give their thinking a visionary style where they easily predict what "the masses" want. as a result their ventures err on the side of being too conservative, too unimaginative.

INTps are like this too and to an exaggerated extent. they're typically accountants and business analysts with no real interest in visionary "steve jobs" style thinking or directive action in the first place.

ENTp, ESTp and ENFj are the most natural and common company leaders.

INTjs, like Tim Cook, are the best strategists for company management, but they rely a lot on their "second-in-commands" to get things done. they are ideal for the job but it's not as simple for them to get there.

the typical progression is from a merry extrovert company founder to a base Ti heir. after that, the company has to pass on to Serious quadra types or the visionary management style will be inappropriate to the times. it's only very late that the Serious types enter the picture.

[Amber]

From http://www.socionikaskola.lv/en/soci...208-raksts-bnn


She makes a reliable point. For example, ENTjs are the perfect stereotype of a businessman - restless, always wanting to work and manage, numbers-focused, etc. ENTjs are definitely born to succeed in business.

If an ISFp or an INFp had to compete against an ENTj in a general sphere of management and entrepreneurship, the ENTj will win most of the time. (Yes, there are the rare exceptions where if an ISFp were designing clothes or art and then selling it, then the ISFp would win).


What are the 6 types she's talking about?

At first I thought it was the 6 central quadra types (excluding ESI and IEI) which are EIE, LSI, SLE, LIE, SEE, and ILI from http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ss-Competition.

I definitely agree with most of them except for EIE and SEE.

If I were choosing the types, I'd replace EIE and SEE with LSE and SLI (because Te > Fe/Fi in business).

I may be wrong.

What types do you think make the best businessmen?

You are right in a way .

ENTJ, ESTP, ESTJ , mby even ENTP, ENFJ and ESFP make the best businessmen . No LIE I know sold used cars . It's the type with most vision and strategic attributes in my opinion ( I mean facts in my life showed me that ). SLE could be good salesmen but mby they are more ambitious and make something of their life . ESTJ is the most hardworking , typically in smaller management positions or satisfied about a more conformist monotonous job that brings them a good salary and mby a team to lead .

[mu4]

ENTjs are best at small scale economic ventures like used car salesmanship. their Te doesn't really give their thinking a visionary style where they easily predict what "the masses" want. as a result their ventures err on the side of being too conservative, too unimaginative.

INTps are like this too and to an exaggerated extent. they're typically accountants and business analysts with no real interest in visionary "steve jobs" style thinking or directive action in the first place.

ENTp, ESTp and ENFj are the most natural and common company leaders.

INTjs, like Tim Cook, are the best strategists for company management, but they rely a lot on their "second-in-commands" to get things done. they are ideal for the job but it's not as simple for them to get there.

the typical progression is from a merry extrovert company founder to a base Ti heir. after that, the company has to pass on to Serious quadra types or the visionary management style will be inappropriate to the times. it's only very late that the Serious types enter the picture.

I think it really depends on the business. Mainstream mature businesses aren't all that interesting to some types, western innovative focused business going to appeal to Merry Extx while ENFj owners are quite common in fashion, art, service, industries.

I think maybe in Central/Eastern Europe and Latvia, it's not as possible for a ILE to create a business, much less popularize innovation. It has no real fashion, art or service market.

I think ILE's are not really natural at business, American business environment is pretty suited for ILE business people however, as the model for business is Venture/Innovation oriented with a lot of seed capital, angel investors, etc. In Latvia, the environment isn't suited for a ILE business person starting something from the grounds up.

I think ILE business people are more capital dependent and are not particularly good at building something from the grounds up without funding, as ILE do not prioritize immediate profits and venture into unknown territory, they need security in this manner. ILE entrepreneurs like Ted Turner, Howard Hughes inherited significant wealth, and Ted lost most of it due to misplaying the power struggle within Warner Brothers later in his life while Howard Hughes had mental issues, especially after his accident. ILE's aren't really suited for the kind of power struggle that occur when business mature and internal political conflicts starts to dominate the proceedings. Of course Ted is the 2nd biggest landowner in the us and still a billionaire.

[FDG]

ENTp, ESTp and ENFj are the most natural and common company leaders.
.

Estps, not really imho. The other two i agree.

I agree that LIEs being result types may not be that great at building social empires like apple but we're still strategic so the used car salesmanship is usually a way to accumulate capital to eventually put into practice our peculiar pet projects.

[gzaw]

Estps, not really imho. The other two i agree.

I agree that LIEs being result types may not be that great at building social empires like apple but we're still strategic so the used car salesmanship is usually a way to accumulate capital to eventually put into practice our peculiar pet projects.

What type is Steve Jobs? I hear ENTx and ENFj, though I'm not sure.

[golden]

"Businessperson" encompasses too much. I'm considering doing an MBA, and the different concentrations range from accounting to marketing to entrepreneurship to global exchange to organizational psychology. Obviously there's a place for a lot of diff ppl in that range. It isn't all E-suite and sales even if that is a traditional model and still exists.

And there are too many kinds of businesses to exclude half the socion from this arena. That said, business environments in the U.S. have been changing. Definitely more inclusive than in the past. The business students at my university were almost all male frat types and wore fucking suits to classes and were in.suff.er.able. Shallow as hell. I could not have endured that.

[aixelsyd]

I've seen some excellent SEE managers. Some of the best managers I've seen and worked with are SEE. Not sure why you discount us.

I think LIEs can make excellent executives, but I think they are overrated when it comes to middle management and anything lower.

I think industry can make a difference, too.

Anyway, my vote is for SEE, SLE, LIE, EIE, and LSE.

[Pookie]

Depends on the occupation. i work in a cubicle research environment, and the best people are LIEs SLEs LIIs LSEs (only in leadership roles) SLI and me, cuz I is da bess.

EIEs LSIs and ILIs drown in my office.

[strangeling]

I don't even think ENTJs are all that great at business. They pursue their interests and do it with a passion, which can help if it's also what they do for a living. But they could give fuck-all for the social aspects of business or what people think. the masses are asses anyway, let a Ti type play with that political crap, selling visionary shit, and influencing the masses with the stuff pulled out of their asses. hey, that rhymes.

[FDG]

I But they could give fuck-all for the social aspects of business or what people think.

That's where the SF types should normally be helpful.

[Deer Woman]

I'd say SLE, ILE, LIE, LSE (all 4D Te, business style communication). Se ego is more likely to be desirous and wanting to acquire more territory, like a typical successful entrepreneur does. So double for SLE. LSE does it without trying.
For the other two types, I would say LSI and ESI based on a fascinating Se creative description I've read.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Extraverted_sensing
Scroll down to Golihov's descriptions.

[The Reality Denialist]

I have hard time at seeing why non Te valuer would gravitate towards business for business sake. I wouldn't unless it provides something for valued IMEs like mobilising Fe and since this never occurred I don't even think about it.
#1 it requires network of people with capabilities.
#2 something truly novel but it needs to meet the needs of others.
#3 no preposterous business meetings and networking (it gets awkward and monotonous). Yucky!

[Disturbed]

**EDIT: John Lennon was an ILE-Ti (I had thought he was an EIE-Ni because JuJu was an EIE-Ni and claimed John Lennon was an EIE-Ni and I had thought all EIE-Ni would always be correct when saying someone was the same subtype and type as themselves. John D. Rockefeller was an LSI-Se. Pinault I'm not sure. Jeff Bezos is an LSI-Se or ILE-Ti.

/EDIT

John Lennon was an EIE-Ni. Michael Jackson was an EIE-Ni. Sega of America was run by Tom Kalinske an EIE (intuitive subtype I guess). Apple was run by an EIE (intuitive subtype I guess). nvidia is run by an EIE (intuitive subtype I guess). They were all financially successful businessmen.

My dad started one of the most financially successful family medical practices in Virginia (made about 2x the average income of all american family physicians) and he is an EIE-Ni, though he had little to do with it's growth and he said he wouldn't have grown it like it was if decisions had stayed in hands, he said he would've just kept a smaller office and outsourced more.

I'd say that EIE are probably better business people than LIE as EIE create better product and LIE are prone to too many miscalculations (Ni is smoother, works better for EIE than it does for LIE), the EIE's Ti-valuing helps in making their products more elegant and EIE's have better access to and use superior lawyers. EIE's products are also more beautiful, LIE can create some shitty looking and sounding things because of how Si-PoLR manifests differently between the two.

But now for the bottom line: LSE-Si are probably the most successful company founders and leaders (John D Rockefeller and Louis B. Mayer were LSE-Si and I think Francois Pinault is LSE-Si, Jeff Bezos may be LSE-Si) and I think a lot of Dutch people were LSE-Si and the Dutch were known for capitalism. LSE-Si can calculate and distribute resources very well, are more interested in new technologies independent of whether the new technologies are popular and they have strong, valued Si, so they don't really need to be Fe-valuing to be successful, they have Te to tell to people how to do everything and to make sure their products have a lot practical or pleasurable use, and their Activating Ne really serves them well (they know who and can find out where the most competent people are and can get them to work for them). All of those, especially combined, go way further than having process base Fe IMO (LSE-Si are better than EIE-Ni at assessing talent and designing systems to promote performance even though some EIE think their the masters at those things). the LSE-Si and EIE-Ni are both dynamic, process, and negativist, so their standards are both going to be high, but LSE-Si valued functions are more important IMO.

[myresearch]

These 6 types go big or they go home. In other words, if someone is going to go big, it is probably going to be one of these types and again if someone is going to go home, it is probably going to be one of these types.

[hellohellohello]

I'm positive Tim Cook is LIE.

[Disturbed]

Generally, EIE-Fe is the very best at creating social empires (e.g., Oprah, Steve Jobs, my dad) and merry types in general get more credit. LSI-Se (this guy named terry melonson) and ESI-Se (e.g., Marshall Mathers III, Porsha Lippincott) can also influence people pretty heavily, many of them are as successful with people as EIE-Fe. LIE-Te and some LSI-Ti also. They think more clearly than EIE-Ni and all of those types are more motivated to have impact than ILE-Ti, so they're more likely to make social empires. EIE-Ni and LIE-Ni tend to join groups and become the leaders of them, they're less creative, less practical, more judgmental, and less able to organize than their base function counter-parts.

[Not A Communist Shill]

In Socionics, LIE, although I think EJ temperament types overall make the best managers (or at least, are most common). The most common undergraduate degrees of Fortune 500 CEOs are engineering, economics, and business, in that order, all subjects I regard as LIE although LSE may be a contender for business and maybe engineering: https://academicinfluence.com/rankin...-500-companies

[Sol]

In Socionics, LIE, although I think EJ temperament types overall make the best managers

Type efficiency depends on a region which should lay on strong functions much, preferably valued ones.
And also methods and conditions, which can be different for same region - to have different degree of functional data.
For leading it's same - just one of occupations.
T will be not good where emotional influence is important. Such is for situations where informal communications are useful, where exists a use to motivate emotionally while exists not much to think about.
Dichotomies E/I and J/P will influence on a style of methods and what better fits to some of occupations.

Give to that LIE to lead a group of kids on a walking. To manage a kitchen where is important to understand the quality of meal.
Nonstable conditions harder for J.
If to take "business". LIE will not be good as a trader where exists a need to influence on buyers personally.
It's often useful to understand good personally what is done by others. To be able to do good the same what subordinates, to have experience in this. Such occupations with F and S will become a problem to be a leader.

If to evaluate by money quantity, capitals - there should be rather different types in top. Including because of the motivation to have the more (Se mainly), not only from skills. Because of social conditions are strong, including family money, people contacts, education. Accidental events.

The approach to take managering or business with many money is to general for concrete types.

[Alomoes]

Uh, I’m an actually gonna double check the statement that businessmen are born not made. The guy who founded Chik-fil-a actually wrote books saying the exact opposite, that it had to do with child rearing, and I’d believe that more.

55% of Americans have started a business, and about half succeed. The representatives of people by personality type are probably pretty homogenous in this group. As an example, my friend who lives in the middle of nowhere is starting a small construction business. He’s probably going to do around 30k+ in sales this year. He’s probably going to be a successful businessman. What type is he? Well he has a learning disability, and people joke about him literally not being able to read properly. It’s not hard to run a business, it just takes an amount of start up capital, a degree of common sense, and a lot of luck. Course I’ve been making good money as his accountant, which is nice.

But yeah, remember that 10% of Americans have an IQ of less than 80. While this proscribes you from joining the military, it does not keep you from running a successful business.

[FDG]

Give to that LIE to lead a group of kids on a walking. To manage a kitchen where is important to understand the quality of meal.
Nonstable conditions harder for J.
If to take "business". LIE will not be good as a trader where exists a need to influence on buyers personally.

Good point about nonstable conditions and J types. Indeed T + J doesn't handle long term unstable "external" conditions that well. In a way, F types find solace or support in people and can manage to be more influential.

Te dominant types - the best when you have a business where you can "steamroll", where quantity of work is important and quick, easy decisions can be made. I'm talking about business here - public service is also quite full of Te dominant types who work in research, administration and so on and that's a spot where being a rational-thinking type works pretty well.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah I'm skeptical of this. I think it's more about what type of values your parents instilled in you not your 'personality.' There's also a thing where a lot of people ((especially Non-Jewish Christians)) are raised to believe that you can have morality and you can have money but you can't have both. Since a lot of people would rather be Christ's children but poor than be wealthy but evil, it's understandable. A lifetime being rewarded by Satan for material things but the price is being tortured in Hell for eternity, it doesn't seem worth it.

John Waters makes a good point by saying there are poor people who are assholes too, but a lot of us were raised that the root of all evil is money (or the love of money, whatever - people like to say that as if the misunderstanding actually means anything but I think it's rather irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and many/most? people don't really want to be evil assholes or have other people look at them like they are evil assholes.

A grimdark campy example of this might be the wealthy pedophile Mason Verger in the Hannibal series. Of course very wealthy Cthulhu Demons such as Prah always like to pretend that they got there being morally superior than everybody else but people can usually see through the narcissism that entails. @Coeruleum Blue

It's not type related, I'm close friends with a Jewish IEI celebrity who is filthy rich and obviously his stereotypical Jewish heritage makes him wealthy a lot more than his type - and it's really because he wasn't really raised with those kind of victimy goyim Christian morals. What about the LIE on here who wasn't that rich but was an EMT for awhile? The annual salary for an average EMT looks pretty average to me but what would I know, I'm just a loser Te Polr IEI. According to douchebags on this site.

[Metamorph]

There's also a thing where a lot of people ((especially Non-Jewish Christians)) are raised to believe that you can have morality and you can have money but you can't have both. Since a lot of people would rather be Christ's children but poor than be wealthy but evil, it's understandable.

...What an ironic use of those Antisemite parentheses. Anyhow, I don't think this is true. I've heard some of Jesus's followers weren't poor, they just shared their resources really well. The interpretation I heard of the verse about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Paradise is referring to people who think they're saved because they're wealthy, like basically Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel types who think that wealth is a sign of salvation while poverty is a sign of damnation, and not saying that you're saved because you're poor. I heard the verses after it are also quite important, so I will post the few verses where Jesus is speaking.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:23-26 KJV

After Jesus says how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, the disciples' reaction is that they're wondering who can be saved at all, not assuming that only poor people can be saved. And Jesus says that it's impossible for men to save anyone, but God can save people. Note: I am not a professional theologian, but this is what I've heard from people who seem to be experts. You can probably look into it yourself if you think it's really important for you to know.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well yeah, you're not saved *just because* you are poor or that you are poor at all. That is obviously quite stupid and a weird understanding of what I was saying. I seem to have been misunderstood there. It's also not antisemitic to point out the obvious values of a culture and race and I don't think there's anything wrong with making money either- but I was explaining why people have the self-limiting beliefs surrounding money that they do and why they may not be successful in the worldly sense. Sarah Silverman even jokingly makes fun of herself and how she likes money etc. And those Biblical passages have proved my point not really the other way around. Thinking you need to be a professional to contribute in discussions is something dumb this site does anyway and I wouldn't want to start that. Real professionals would most likely avoid this site like a plague and I wouldn't blame them lol.

[DogOfDanger]

TBH unless her claim is based in research it is pretty much useless.
Business is an extremely broad category, there are many different types of businesses, so I found her claim to be pretty dubious on its face.
For example, there's anything from a marketing business to a software engineering business to an organic foods business to a lawn mowing business to a hair salon business, and so on.
And there are many different types of business strategies... door to door sales is much different than online marketing is much different than working as a vendor for large companies is much different than being an exec at a major company is much different than managing a company in the service industry is much different than investing, etc.