Types of my co-workers

[UDP]

Having just returned from an alpha-heavy group work setting...


I like ESEs, but being a subordinate to them in a system is no good. They are very inefficient, and focused on perfectionism in the most seeking of ways. The inner ESE is calling out to me sooooo badly.... begging me for Ti........ but I have to hold back otherwise the ESE would (and in some ways probably has) build huge resentment towards me - I'd be doing things better, and we both know it.

If an ESE was subordinate to me, it would go a lot better.
But too much "stereotypical alpha atmospher" is just too much clutter... all this gossip, Si floating around, it gets in the way.


I really prefer working with Gammas for the most part, so long as they aren't caught up in being overly materialistic. At least they want to do stuff. Delta would probably be my favorite. IF a group is lacking Gamma and Delta, it just wreaks of immaturity and lack of progress.


Now, none of this has anything to do with proper leadership, mind you, as that is failing everywhere I look. But as far as quadra energies, tendencies, and work environments, I find alphas rather annoying. Beta people seem okay as long as they stay focused. It almost seems like alphas are... incompetent... in really getting things done. They have good ideas and put a nice energy into things, but its all fluff and no substance.

(working with them made me understand a little more the alpha/gamma divide, and why ESFjs and INTps are conflictors and so on, a little more)

I was really thinking "... man, this person needs some Ni badly", and I tried to work it out in an alpha way. But even seeing it, seeing the ESE react to it with a strange sort of uncertainty -- seeing their minds working and watching them go "I don't really know what to do", and then making a sort of arbitrary, often Ti seeking decision.... it was a vivid experience.


I can also see how many 'nonprofit' and similar organizations fail, as they attract many alpha and caregiver-y people, yet no one to actually tell them what to do. It is really a shame, too, as important things could be done, often times much better.

[Logos]

The irony of course that people often do not like to be subordinate to an INTj in a system. And I think that an INTj and ESFj work best in any system when they submit themselves to an equally shared amount of power.

[UDP]

If everyone was on an equal playing field that would be fine, but I would tend to gravitate towards 'the process' at any rate.

[Expat]

My preferred co-workers, based on experience:

- generally speaking: ISFj, INFj, ESTj, ENTj
- as my ally to face a meeting with an annoying and difficult customer: ISTj
- during a first friendly visit to a customer: ESFj

Yeah this is "biased" in favor of rationals but I do prefer working with rationals; not to say I can't work with irrationals though.

[FDG]

Let's see, types I've worked the best with:

ISFj male boss older than me
ISTj: for technical projects, although we sometimes end up wasting time chatting
INTj-Ne
ENTp: in a project at school that had a purely theorethical side
INFp-Ni: probably the best collaboration in one graphic project and language one
ISFp-Si: a bit too focussed on jusy bringing shit to eat to everybody,but overall a fun girl, mood brightening and favouring a good work atmosphere


people I can't work with

ESFp: impossible to logically convince of anything
ESTp: I feel like I have to watch my back every time
INFp-Fe: Just way too much attempts at group conformism

UDP: I think that there's some enneagram shit into that. I know an ESFJ-Si-E 7 (o_o!!) (the one i posted the pic of) that isn't perfectionistic, just realistic. However the 1w2 ones...stay away from me.

[olduser]

I work well with men.

[Slacker]

My favorite boss was an ESTj. Everyone else hated him.

My second favorite boss was an ENTp.

My least favorite boss was an ISTj, as was my least favorite co-worker.

I had lots of people I worked well with, including ISTps and ENFps, but also other types. I should post about some in "what's my type".

[jessica129]

Any type other than EF's.

[XoX]

I generally work best with people who want to get concrete results of extraordinary quality but are patient and thoughtful instead of just rushing to do things quickly. I like people to have strong team spirit like in team sports where everyone knows their role and is appreciated and the team wins or loses together. I don't like people who have hidden agendas and do solo stuff without considering the team goal. Also I seriously hate backstabbers as well as people who network "behind the scenes" in order to raise their own value but not the teams value. I want people to dedicate themselves to reaching the common goal and do whatever it takes to get there. I want people to be able to make compromises when there are two or more conflicting views. I dislike people who always want to do things their way even if it starts to hinder the team spirit and general team effectiveness. I dislike people who provide useless criticism which only slows things down but I do like people who are not afraid to say their opinion out loud when they disagree. Generally I want to be in a team with competent, enterprising and committed people who make extraordinary things happen but also can accept a loss and failure and rebuild from that without starting to accuse each other. I don't like people who have huge ego and are sensitive of that. I also dislike people who require formal interaction and formal procedures to be used in the team communication or who stress about the hiearchy too much. If there is hierarchy it is there to serve the people and the goal but people are not there to server the hierarchy. Then I dislike people who realize they are less competent than someone else but try to put them down based on hierarchy or other superficial reasons. Generally if you do anything which raises yourself up but hinders the team's effectiveness is seen as a misbehavior. I guess there is more, lol.

How I have liked to work with (in jobs and school projects)...mistypings possible but...

My worst adversary and most difficult work mate has been an ENTp. Although we had quite a long work relationship we could never really find a common language. We ended up not doing much cooperation but instead worked as individuals. Our strengths differed in a way that the "cooperation" was kind of fruitful and we respected each other's strengths but we couldn't interact or communicate on a close psychological distance. We also misunderstood each other all the time. And she was the complete opposite of what I described above about my preferred work mate.

I generally have good impression of working with ESTjs. They have many of the qualities I want in a workmate. I think we perhaps lack some functions when we are a team and we could use some extra strenghts but anyways a good and reliable work mate.

I have mixed feelings about INTjs. They do have many of the qualities I need in people but they are also quite difficult and stubborn and even unpredictable. They are also too individualistic for my taste. However I respect them and feel that they can provide me with something useful which increases my and the team effectiveness. My relationships with INTj is a bit heavy though. Still one of the preferred work mates but less so than ESTj.

I don't work well with INFps. I think I have experience of two of them and they do stuff which I don't like (behind the scenes networking, lacking in team spirit, ...). Generally they seem very secretive and are prone to break their promises and miss their deadlines. Their behind the scenes "manipulation" however keeps their career on the rise which bugs me Lol. Ok, they just have different methods and we don't work well together. They can be good in brainstorming sessions though. They have good ideas especially when doing research and development work. I just don't want them in my team. I might buy consulting services from them though.

ENFps I generally respect. Works better than with ENTps. Then again I dislike the fact that they are a bit high on ego and kind of individualistic. They also tend to make evaluations of other people and I feel like I'm constantly watched and they keep on giving their verbal evaluations about me which is annoying. Like where my strenghts are and where I fail to deliver and where they are positively surprised by me and where they are disappointed and so on. I just wish they could focus more on the task and less on the people.

I have little experience of ESTps. I have done couple of common projects. There were some heated moments and some negative developments but the end results was ok so I guess I could work with them again. I guess they are also prone to do behind the scene networking and information hiding which sucks a bit. However they actually have real competences which is good I have a way better mutual understanding with them than with ENTps. Which of them I would select as my workmate depends on what we are trying to achieve.

ISTjs are ok. They are way too pedantic and unimaginative to my taste though but are reliable, do what they promise, focus on tasks and not the people, ... they generally have many of the good qualities I want in a workmate but their pedantic and detailed working style and some weaknesses they have make ESTj > ISTj. ISTjs somehow seem to lack "common sense".

I have no real experience of ISFjs except on a very personal setting but I think they might be somewhere between ESTj and ISTj. They have more common sense than ISTjs but I'd still rather work with ESTjs. ISFjs seem to stress a lot and create a "bad" atmosphere. They can also get pissed off about things which I consider minor. More experience of ISFjs might chance this.

ESFjs perhaps..they instill somekind of emotional chaos in me which makes it harder to think calmly. However they have strenghts which I appreciate. Perhaps an ESFj in my team would be a good thing but working too closely with them would feel like being on an emotional roller coaster.

ESFps...they are often good company but I don't have much experience in work environments. I think they would have some good qualities and I would generally like them as work mates. I think out strenghts are different in a complemental way so as long as we would find a roles which fits our strenghts it would be ok. Their habbit of rushing things forward without thinking might become a problem in closer cooperation. However they tend to listen to my opinion and I tend to listen to their opinion so I would like to try working with ESFps. I like their generall openness and habbit of putting forward a good and energetic "spirit". One of the major problems with ESFps is that they can sometimes be rather stubborn with some totally illogical opinion and just go and do it even if people convincingly argue that they shouldn't. They don't like to be controlled. Out of work environment this behavior is rather sweet and even magnetic but in business environment it can create problems.

ISTps...I dislike how hard it is to get stuff out of them. And the fact they don't seem to react to anything. I like it how they do their job and are reliable and in many ways are what I described a good workmate to be like. Communication with them is just a bit too hard to make working with them really enjoyable. Perhaps if there was an ENFp in the team to make them open up it would be better.

INTps...I like them. I have had a probable INTp boss and INTp workmate and they are cool. We generally have a very positive atmosphere and they tend to listen to my ideas. Then they often lack in social skills to the extent that is sometimes annoying. One on one we work well but in a team setting their way of interacting with people can be a bit of a turn off. We often have fun when interacting though and they seem more open than ISTps which is a plus. I would like to have one INTp in every team I am in (but no more than one!). My relations with them is rarely very argumentative compared to e.g. my INTj relations.

ENFj...as a workmate..NO. Somehow I have problems seeing myself on the same level with ENFjs. I could see them as my boss or my subordinate as I respect many qualities in them but working WITH them would be hard. Easier than with INFps though as they are not as secretive. Perhaps ENFj as a boss would be the best arrangement. Actually the only ENFj I knew was a good boss in the sense that he really was team spirited and tried to make his team the best there is. He would also never backstab his subordinates or own team like ENTps do. Then again ENFj boss is quite controlling (where ENTp boss gives you a lot of freedom). ENFjs also pay a bit too much attention to "politics" over getting things done. Sometimes it is hard to convince ENFj that their strategy sucks because they don't seem to listen to my rationalizations. They will eventually see that I was right though but they are unlikely to give me credit for that. They are also too afraid of loosing their face (something where ENTps pwn them because they have more courage and are not afraid of anything). So the are negatives but all in all ENFj is one of my favourite bosses (mostly because of their focus on tightly knitted and "battle ready" team..one for all and all for one kind of attitude).

Ok, there is already too many types already and too unreliable typing and the post is too long so I stop... This was pretty adhoc as I tried to remember who I have worked with and what type they probably were. I think it gives good direction on my preferences though.

[FDG]

I generally work best with people who want to get concrete results of extraordinary quality but are patient and thoughtful instead of just rushing to do things quickly. I like people to have strong team spirit like in team sports where everyone knows their role and is appreciated and the team wins or loses together.

This is a very focal point, because I tend not to get along at work with this kind of spirit. I generally don't have anything against teams but I never ever feel "part of a team". I have fun playing, but I go my own way after that. Don't expect me to sacrifice my happiness for an "Higher goal". Although the kind of people that appreciate work team tend not to dislike things I do because I tend to be very enthusiastic and dedicated and/or compentent. Just...not a teammate really. The way I usually get "hooked up" to a team is because in the team there is somebody I like to work with. Individualism is a definite priority in my life.

Just yesterday I was discussing with this Fe-INFp. He was proposing that school imposed compulsory uniforms because "this way there would have been a sense of unity towards something common" and "the differences between rich and poor would have been equalized". I told him that if I were forced to do anything, I would have done the opposite just because. "unity towards a great goal" -

There are a few people that accept this example, usually STs are just like "whatever as long as the result is good!". Beta NFs are kind of pissed but they swallow it. Overall ENFjs resent it the most. They try to construct a carefully crafted group atmoshpere that I kind of "destroy" with my wits.

[Expat]

This is a very focal point, because I tend not to get along at work with this kind of spirit. I generally don't have anything against teams but I never ever feel "part of a team". I have fun playing, but I go my own way after that. Don't expect me to sacrifice my happiness for an "Higher goal". Although the kind of people that appreciate work team tend not to dislike things I do because I tend to be very enthusiastic and dedicated and/or compentent. Just...not a teammate really. The way I usually get "hooked up" to a team is because in the team there is somebody I like to work with. Individualism is a definite priority in my life.

Just yesterday I was discussing with this Fe-INFp. He was proposing that school imposed compulsory uniforms because "this way there would have been a sense of unity towards something common" and "the differences between rich and poor would have been equalized". I told him that if I were forced to do anything, I would have done the opposite just because. "unity towards a great goal" -

I totally identify with your example, especially your at the "compulsory uniforms towards a sense of unity" - my immediate thought is , brainwashing of the Khmer Rouge sort.

I see teams as "coalitions of the willing". If I am working with other people in a team, as in work, I do not need, nor do I want, any feeling of a "team spirit". I will do my job because it's my job, especially if we have agreed beforehand on what has to be done. I hate - hate with a passion - corporate "team-building exercises".

In relationships, or with friends - my real friends - it's different. I am with them because I want to be.

[XoX]

I generally work best with people who want to get concrete results of extraordinary quality but are patient and thoughtful instead of just rushing to do things quickly. I like people to have strong team spirit like in team sports where everyone knows their role and is appreciated and the team wins or loses together.

This is a very focal point, because I tend not to get along at work with this kind of spirit. I generally don't have anything against teams but I never ever feel "part of a team". I have fun playing, but I go my own way after that. Don't expect me to sacrifice my happiness for an "Higher goal". Although the kind of people that appreciate work team tend not to dislike things I do because I tend to be very enthusiastic and dedicated and/or compentent. Just...not a teammate really. The way I usually get "hooked up" to a team is because in the team there is somebody I like to work with. Individualism is a definite priority in my life.

Just yesterday I was discussing with this Fe-INFp. He was proposing that school imposed compulsory uniforms because "this way there would have been a sense of unity towards something common" and "the differences between rich and poor would have been equalized". I told him that if I were forced to do anything, I would have done the opposite just because. "unity towards a great goal" -

There are a few people that accept this example, usually STs are just like "whatever as long as the result is good!". Beta NFs are kind of pissed but they swallow it. Overall ENFjs resent it the most. They try to construct a carefully crafted group atmoshpere that I kind of "destroy" with my wits.

So what do you think this implies about my type? And it is true that I like ENFj exactly because they do like to create good and integrated group atmospheres. They can be wicked to people not belonging to their group but they can really make the team members feel like a TEAM. That is a total opposite to ENTps (or is it ENTjs?) who probably can't even spell the word "team". This is why I would like an ENFj boss. I know that the team would be solid and the spirit good and the performance and roles perfected to the optimum. I am somewhat distrustful of ENFj ability to actually "do stuff" which is why I would be less interested in having ENFj co-worker or subordinate. In my opinion they are leaders and should understand their strenghts and weaknesses and stay away from "real work", lol. (I guess someone should just shut down their Te-role )

[FDG]

I generally work best with people who want to get concrete results of extraordinary quality but are patient and thoughtful instead of just rushing to do things quickly. I like people to have strong team spirit like in team sports where everyone knows their role and is appreciated and the team wins or loses together.

This is a very focal point, because I tend not to get along at work with this kind of spirit. I generally don't have anything against teams but I never ever feel "part of a team". I have fun playing, but I go my own way after that. Don't expect me to sacrifice my happiness for an "Higher goal". Although the kind of people that appreciate work team tend not to dislike things I do because I tend to be very enthusiastic and dedicated and/or compentent. Just...not a teammate really. The way I usually get "hooked up" to a team is because in the team there is somebody I like to work with. Individualism is a definite priority in my life.

Just yesterday I was discussing with this Fe-INFp. He was proposing that school imposed compulsory uniforms because "this way there would have been a sense of unity towards something common" and "the differences between rich and poor would have been equalized". I told him that if I were forced to do anything, I would have done the opposite just because. "unity towards a great goal" -

There are a few people that accept this example, usually STs are just like "whatever as long as the result is good!". Beta NFs are kind of pissed but they swallow it. Overall ENFjs resent it the most. They try to construct a carefully crafted group atmoshpere that I kind of "destroy" with my wits.

So what do you think this implies about my type? And it is true that I like ENFj exactly because they do like to create good and integrated group atmospheres.

The keyword is "create". In my mind a group atmosphere either is that because people like each other naturally or you can't create it trying to charge, make up slongans, motivate, etc - all of that is useless if people aren't naturally into each other.

As for what it implies, very clearly pronounced aristocratic preference.

They can be wicked to people not belonging to their group but they can really make the team members feel like a TEAM. That is a total opposite to ENTps (or is it ENTjs?) who probably can't even spell the word "team". This is why I would like an ENFj boss. I know that the team would be solid and the spirit good and the performance and roles perfected to the optimum. I am somewhat distrustful of ENFj ability to actually "do stuff" which is why I would be less interested in having ENFj co-worker or subordinate. In my opinion they are leaders and should understand their strenghts and weaknesses and stay away from "real work", lol. (I guess someone should just shut down their Te-role )

I understand what you mean and I agree that they can be very good team leaders when the components are oriented towards that. I personally would trust much more an ISTj or INTj or INTp group leader because I know he/she won't involved in useless group politics and motivational crap (i have a kind of mental shield to any motivational/brainwashing slong) insteead being focussed on doing things.

[XoX]

This is a very focal point, because I tend not to get along at work with this kind of spirit. I generally don't have anything against teams but I never ever feel "part of a team". I have fun playing, but I go my own way after that. Don't expect me to sacrifice my happiness for an "Higher goal". Although the kind of people that appreciate work team tend not to dislike things I do because I tend to be very enthusiastic and dedicated and/or compentent. Just...not a teammate really. The way I usually get "hooked up" to a team is because in the team there is somebody I like to work with. Individualism is a definite priority in my life.

Just yesterday I was discussing with this Fe-INFp. He was proposing that school imposed compulsory uniforms because "this way there would have been a sense of unity towards something common" and "the differences between rich and poor would have been equalized". I told him that if I were forced to do anything, I would have done the opposite just because. "unity towards a great goal" -

I totally identify with your example, especially your at the "compulsory uniforms towards a sense of unity" - my immediate thought is , brainwashing of the Khmer Rouge sort.

I see teams as "coalitions of the willing". If I am working with other people in a team, as in work, I do not need, nor do I want, any feeling of a "team spirit". I will do my job because it's my job, especially if we have agreed beforehand on what has to be done. I hate - hate with a passion - corporate "team-building exercises".

In relationships, or with friends - my real friends - it's different. I am with them because I want to be.

In theory I wouldn't mind compulsory uniforms because it would take away the pain of selecting clothes, lol. A clear and explicit dress code might make my life easier. Then again I might vote "No" to such codes because something about it rubs me the wrong way. A better solution would be to not pay any attention to what people wear The worst solution is that everybody should select their own clothes and clothes affect your performance in the eyes of other people (as it usually is). For example companies that require you to wear a suite are ok. It makes things easier. Also companies with extremely relaxed dress code (people using mostly jeans and t-shirts and the like) are ok. I don't like companies where people dress "fashionably" or something.

And about the team spirit. A good team spirit is quite essential to me. If the team lacks team spirit I find it hard to contribute. I'd rather work alone than in a badly managed team.

[XoX]

I generally work best with people who want to get concrete results of extraordinary quality but are patient and thoughtful instead of just rushing to do things quickly. I like people to have strong team spirit like in team sports where everyone knows their role and is appreciated and the team wins or loses together.

This is a very focal point, because I tend not to get along at work with this kind of spirit. I generally don't have anything against teams but I never ever feel "part of a team". I have fun playing, but I go my own way after that. Don't expect me to sacrifice my happiness for an "Higher goal". Although the kind of people that appreciate work team tend not to dislike things I do because I tend to be very enthusiastic and dedicated and/or compentent. Just...not a teammate really. The way I usually get "hooked up" to a team is because in the team there is somebody I like to work with. Individualism is a definite priority in my life.

Just yesterday I was discussing with this Fe-INFp. He was proposing that school imposed compulsory uniforms because "this way there would have been a sense of unity towards something common" and "the differences between rich and poor would have been equalized". I told him that if I were forced to do anything, I would have done the opposite just because. "unity towards a great goal" -

There are a few people that accept this example, usually STs are just like "whatever as long as the result is good!". Beta NFs are kind of pissed but they swallow it. Overall ENFjs resent it the most. They try to construct a carefully crafted group atmoshpere that I kind of "destroy" with my wits.

So what do you think this implies about my type? And it is true that I like ENFj exactly because they do like to create good and integrated group atmospheres.

The keyword is "create". In my mind a group atmosphere either is that because people like each other naturally or you can't create it trying to charge, make up slongans, motivate, etc - all of that is useless if people aren't naturally into each other.

As for what it implies, very clearly pronounced aristocratic preference.

They can be wicked to people not belonging to their group but they can really make the team members feel like a TEAM. That is a total opposite to ENTps (or is it ENTjs?) who probably can't even spell the word "team". This is why I would like an ENFj boss. I know that the team would be solid and the spirit good and the performance and roles perfected to the optimum. I am somewhat distrustful of ENFj ability to actually "do stuff" which is why I would be less interested in having ENFj co-worker or subordinate. In my opinion they are leaders and should understand their strenghts and weaknesses and stay away from "real work", lol. (I guess someone should just shut down their Te-role )

I understand what you mean and I agree that they can be very good team leaders when the components are oriented towards that. I personally would trust much more an ISTj or INTj or INTp group leader because I know he/she won't involved in useless group politics and motivational crap (i have a kind of mental shield to any motivational/brainwashing slong) insteead being focussed on doing things.

I don't really disagree greatly with anything here. I might prefer INTj > ISTj as a boss because I somewhat dislike the pedantic abilities and lack of vision in ISTjs. INTp group leader I have had and it was ok except they are not that "involved" with the group and kind of distance themselves. So it is hard to understand what they are up to. I do think INTps are straightforward and honest which is good though. They could communicate more though. They are definately better than ENTp.

Now I don't really like slogans and stuff. Mostly I just want a boss who makes sure that the team roles are good and are followed and there are no free raiders or individualists there, lol. Generally lack of direction and confusion over roles and goals is a bad thing. Any kind of confusion is bad actually.

Think of a very intelligent, skilled, inspirational, somewhat caring but also tough, blunt and demanding team sports coach. He will only take your best performance but he is ready and willing to help you put forward your best act.

[FDG]

Now I don't really like slogans and stuff. Mostly I just want a boss who makes sure that the team roles are good and are followed and there are no free raiders or individualists there, lol. Think of a very intelligent, skilled, inspirational, somewhat caring but also tough, blunt and demanding team sports coach. He will only take your best performance but he is ready and willing to help you put forward your best act.

I am the complete opposite. When given complete freedom I give the best results ever and push myself the best. When stifled by a role I purposefully undermine everything.

[Expat]

As for what it implies, very clearly pronounced aristocratic preference.

Yes.

They can be wicked to people not belonging to their group but they can really make the team members feel like a TEAM. That is a total opposite to ENTps (or is it ENTjs?) who probably can't even spell the word "team". This is why I would like an ENFj boss. I know that the team would be solid and the spirit good and the performance and roles perfected to the optimum. I am somewhat distrustful of ENFj ability to actually "do stuff" which is why I would be less interested in having ENFj co-worker or subordinate. In my opinion they are leaders and should understand their strenghts and weaknesses and stay away from "real work", lol. (I guess someone should just shut down their Te-role )

And about the team spirit. A good team spirit is quite essential to me. If the team lacks team spirit I find it hard to contribute. I'd rather work alone than in a badly managed team.

What I find difficult relating to is this about "team spirit". At face value, it screams Aristocratic .

INTp group leader I have had and it was ok except they are not that "involved" with the group and kind of distance themselves. So it is hard to understand what they are up to. I do think INTps are straightforward and honest which is good though. They could communicate more though. They are definately better than ENTp.

I think a true INTp would feel the outside pressure to get "involved" in a group emotionally in a sort of team spirit as sort of agonizing torture, a living hell.

Now I don't really like slogans and stuff. Mostly I just want a boss who makes sure that the team roles are good and are followed and there are no free raiders or individualists there, lol. Generally lack of direction and confusion over roles and goals is a bad thing. Any kind of confusion is bad actually.

Let me understand what you mean by this, since it's important.

What do you mean by "free raiders or individualists"? People who, for instance, don't share information that is useful to others - whether in a formal "team" or not? People who don't do the work they agreed to do - whether in a "team" or not? They are not being "individualist" or "free raiders" - they are being just unprofessional. I don't want, nor do I need, some "coach" to remind me of the proper way to work.

But if you mean that only people who feel that they are part of a "team spirit" can really work together with others and those who don't feel like that are necessarily "free raiders" -- then that's Aristocracy run amok.

[stefana]

Having just returned from an alpha-heavy group work setting...


I like ESEs, but being a subordinate to them in a system is no good. They are very inefficient, and focused on perfectionism in the most seeking of ways. The inner ESE is calling out to me sooooo badly.... begging me for Ti........ but I have to hold back otherwise the ESE would (and in some ways probably has) build huge resentment towards me - I'd be doing things better, and we both know it.

...

I was really thinking "... man, this person needs some Ni badly", and I tried to work it out in an alpha way. But even seeing it, seeing the ESE react to it with a strange sort of uncertainty -- seeing their minds working and watching them go "I don't really know what to do", and then making a sort of arbitrary, often Ti seeking decision.... it was a vivid experience.

that has also been my experience with ESEs, when working in group projects that is. the picture would mostly look like me standing at one spot while the ESE was running around chaotically! if only she would turn around (start listening) would she realise that i was there ready to offer help where it's needed. oh yes, there was a lot of gossiping+giggling when we were supposed to be discussing and which i tried to tolerate :wink:. i experienced lots of place-hopping as well when we were not doing our work in the university, meaning that we'd move from one cafe/eatery to another. so i spent quite a lot on dining out -_-"

my better working experiences so far has mostly been with ILIs and IEEs.

[XoX]

I think a true INTp would feel the outside pressure to get "involved" in a group emotionally in a sort of team spirit as sort of agonizing torture, a living hell.

*shudder*

"Team spirit" is degrading at the very best.

Assuming you understand what I mean and I understand what you mean and all other INTps feel the same then it is unlikely that I'm INTp The thing that keeps me from dropping INTp is the fact that I tend to often test myself as INTp and relate to INTp descriptions. Other than that the case for INTp seems very weak.

[XoX]

Oh and Isha, I remember you originally thought you were Beta / INFp? Or am I mixing you with someone else? What exactly made you originally identify more with INFp and what made you change that perception to INTp?

[XoX]

Ok in order to get it clearer what I mean by team spirit and free riders and team spirit destroying behavior...

I like the concept of team. Team consists of a group of inviduals who have come together to achieve a goal. They have joined their forces because as a team they can achieve more than working as individuals. Team has a leader who manages the team and team roles and such. Team leader is in the end the person who is responsible to "clients" or whoever that the set goals are met successfully. Team members are primarily responsible to the team leader who acts as the "face" of the team. I'm also stressing that when run correctly team performs better than just the sum of its individuals. It is an oiled machine which cannot be stopped This is why individuality must be of second concern in professional team.

Team naturally has members who have somewhat differing skill sets. Some people are probably more talented, intelligent, socially capable than others and there are differences in educational background and level of experience. Team leader should be someone who is able to assign each person a "role" where they can best utilize their talents and skills. No one should be "forced" to some role where they don't fit. This would be counterproductive. If a person doesn't have a suitable role in a team then another person should fill his/her place. It is all about finding a "role" where your own special talents are utilized to the max. In some cases the optimal role might be a "free role" not a clearly defined role. Usually it is clearly defined though and there is only room for "free role" people in some teams.

In a highly functional team the common goal is more important than individual goals. Thing about a soccer team. There are strikers who score goals. There are goal tenders who try to prevent others from scoring goals. And so on. Strikers of course want to score as many goals as possible. Goal tenders want to keep their goal "clean". These personal meters are however secondary and the primary goal is that the TEAM wins. It doesn't matter if the striker only scored one goal if the team still won. It doesn't matter if the striker scored ten goals if the team still lost. Achieving things as a team is what matters. Personal glory naturally follows from team success and the more talented players get more respect and bigger paycheck than the less talented ones. However personal achievements mean nothing if team loses. If you are the best scorer in the league but you fail to win the championship then you should not be proud since you are a loser and a failure. If you didn't score too many goals but the team still won you should be a proud champion. Team success is what matters.

So what kind of people I consider "free raiders" and "destroyers of team spirit" etc. I can give several examples but there probably is more.

Some people have a tendency to not really be part of the team. They kind of work with the team but are not really committed. They try to avoid responsibilities or too tight attachment with the team. If the team fails to achieve their goals then these people quickly distance themselves from the team and claim they are not responsible for the failure. If the team is successful they like to take credit of the success and claim victory as if they were a part of the team. I dislike this behavior. These are sort of "free raiders".

Then some people are too individualistic. They work with the team but they are mostly concerned about their own performance. They don't really care about the team goals but instead have their own goals (which I call "hidden agendas"). The team is just a place where they leech resources in order to achieve their own hidden goals. I dislike this.

Then there are the "team spirit destroyers". One example are so called "star players" i.e. very talented people who at the time of failure blame the weaker team members for the loss and at the time of success try to take all credit for themselves. This is counterproductive behavior and I would not like to have these kind of eccentric star players in my team. Ok, sometimes someone is just SO good that the rest of the team has to put up with them even if they show team spirit killing behavior. In long term I wouldn't keep this kind of person in my team though. Only when their skills are needed for something critical. A real star player is someone who does their own work perfectly but still sticks with the team both in the moment of failure and success. Everybody knows their value without them having to make a big deal about it. A team spirited star player would always say "we lost" or "we won" instead of saying "THEY lost" or "I won".

Now about the general dynamic of the team. I wish the team has open information sharing and all personal agendas are brought to the table and discussed. Individual needs are met as well as possible (both in personal career development as well as assigning team roles in a particular project). However compromises have to be made and sometimes individual is needed to do something which is not quite what they had in mind. In these cases a good team player does their best no matter what they eventually have to do. Whatever it takes for the team to win. A good team leader is needed to manage the team in this kind of situations. A strong team spirit and commitment is needed in order for individuals to make temporary personal sacrifices for the team. A strong trust must be among the team members and team leader so that people don't take advantage of each other in these moments of sacrifice.

Then another point is "crossing" roles. Helping others. If someone is more skilled and talented and can easily do their share but someone else has problems then team members should help each other. I dislike the kind of behavior "I already did my job. Now you do yours. I'm not going to help you". Generally among professionals the competence differences are not big enough for this kind of situations to be common but when rookies or new people are brought to the team then it is necessary that they are supported in the beginning instead of taking an aristocratic approach where more experienced team members separate themselves from "noobs" and instead of helping them like to mock them in order to make themselves feel better. This kind of "noob mocking" shows bad team spirit and I would not like these kind of people to be in my team.

Generally I think the team should consist of people who have similar level of talent and if that is not possible then the more talented team members should understand that this is how it is going to be and the less talented team members are full members of the team. And again team wins or loses together. This is a typical situation where "star players" who lack team spirit can totally destroy the team competence by concentrating on mocking the less talented people instead of doing double the usual effort (which would show that they have the right kind of team spirit). Again I stress the importance of a good team leader.

Ok there is some analysis on how I see teams and what kind of work environment I would feel most comfortable in. I'm not an idealist though and I understand that it is a rare case to achieve that kind of state. However I have been in a team which for quite a while was close to this and it was heaven. Eventually the lack of leadership in critical moments made that team disintegrate. I'm hopeful I can find that kind of place again perhaps with a better team leader I might even develop myself to be that team leader in mid-term future but currently I'd be happy with a sub-ordinate role in that kind of team. I'm not someone who naturally seeks to lead but I can only accept lack of leadership and badly functional and spiritless teams for a finite amount of time.

P.S. This is one of the most "ME" posts I have made. It is how I truly feel about the matter. So this is good material for typing. One of the best there is.

[FDG]

Brr. All of this makes me shiver. Not because I am one of those people you describe in the team destroyer cathegory. Just your description of a team.

Generally I like to play or work in teams. I still have a somewhat individualistic role of the "know-it-all", that is, the one that usually does the most complicated/laborious/creative work but does it by himself without much external collaboration, and that teaches other people how to do the more techincal parts of the work/project/etc. although I tend to get this role "by default". I also resent very much when the team leader tries to take a decision which concerns the strictly techincal/creative side of the job that I usually take over.

I hate when say in a soccer team some guy (usually the xSTj) goes like: OK SO WE HAVE TO ORGANIZE YOU THERE ME HERE YOU THERE. I really have a strong reaction and get neurotic, bitchy, snappy and venomous. However again, if not told what to do, I'm generally the one that deals with the most difficult parts/most fatiguing.

Just don't ask me to be part of the crappy group atmosphere and let me do my job.

[UDP]

polr ?

I suppose it would make sense then to consider myself having an role (with polr) - I look for the area in the system that needs it most, and if is something I'm not good at I find someone else who is more capable.

[cracka]

Ok in order to get it clearer what I mean by team spirit and free riders and team spirit destroying behavior...

I like the concept of team. Team consists of a group of inviduals who have come together to achieve a goal. They have joined their forces because as a team they can achieve more than working as individuals. Team has a leader who manages the team and team roles and such. Team leader is in the end the person who is responsible to "clients" or whoever that the set goals are met successfully. Team members are primarily responsible to the team leader who acts as the "face" of the team. I'm also stressing that when run correctly team performs better than just the sum of its individuals. It is an oiled machine which cannot be stopped This is why individuality must be of second concern in professional team.

Team naturally has members who have somewhat differing skill sets. Some people are probably more talented, intelligent, socially capable than others and there are differences in educational background and level of experience. Team leader should be someone who is able to assign each person a "role" where they can best utilize their talents and skills. No one should be "forced" to some role where they don't fit. This would be counterproductive. If a person doesn't have a suitable role in a team then another person should fill his/her place. It is all about finding a "role" where your own special talents are utilized to the max. In some cases the optimal role might be a "free role" not a clearly defined role. Usually it is clearly defined though and there is only room for "free role" people in some teams.

In a highly functional team the common goal is more important than individual goals. Thing about a soccer team. There are strikers who score goals. There are goal tenders who try to prevent others from scoring goals. And so on. Strikers of course want to score as many goals as possible. Goal tenders want to keep their goal "clean". These personal meters are however secondary and the primary goal is that the TEAM wins. It doesn't matter if the striker only scored one goal if the team still won. It doesn't matter if the striker scored ten goals if the team still lost. Achieving things as a team is what matters. Personal glory naturally follows from team success and the more talented players get more respect and bigger paycheck than the less talented ones. However personal achievements mean nothing if team loses. If you are the best scorer in the league but you fail to win the championship then you should not be proud since you are a loser and a failure. If you didn't score too many goals but the team still won you should be a proud champion. Team success is what matters.

So what kind of people I consider "free raiders" and "destroyers of team spirit" etc. I can give several examples but there probably is more.

Some people have a tendency to not really be part of the team. They kind of work with the team but are not really committed. They try to avoid responsibilities or too tight attachment with the team. If the team fails to achieve their goals then these people quickly distance themselves from the team and claim they are not responsible for the failure. If the team is successful they like to take credit of the success and claim victory as if they were a part of the team. I dislike this behavior. These are sort of "free raiders".

Then some people are too individualistic. They work with the team but they are mostly concerned about their own performance. They don't really care about the team goals but instead have their own goals (which I call "hidden agendas"). The team is just a place where they leech resources in order to achieve their own hidden goals. I dislike this.

Then there are the "team spirit destroyers". One example are so called "star players" i.e. very talented people who at the time of failure blame the weaker team members for the loss and at the time of success try to take all credit for themselves. This is counterproductive behavior and I would not like to have these kind of eccentric star players in my team. Ok, sometimes someone is just SO good that the rest of the team has to put up with them even if they show team spirit killing behavior. In long term I wouldn't keep this kind of person in my team though. Only when their skills are needed for something critical. A real star player is someone who does their own work perfectly but still sticks with the team both in the moment of failure and success. Everybody knows their value without them having to make a big deal about it. A team spirited star player would always say "we lost" or "we won" instead of saying "THEY lost" or "I won".

Now about the general dynamic of the team. I wish the team has open information sharing and all personal agendas are brought to the table and discussed. Individual needs are met as well as possible (both in personal career development as well as assigning team roles in a particular project). However compromises have to be made and sometimes individual is needed to do something which is not quite what they had in mind. In these cases a good team player does their best no matter what they eventually have to do. Whatever it takes for the team to win. A good team leader is needed to manage the team in this kind of situations. A strong team spirit and commitment is needed in order for individuals to make temporary personal sacrifices for the team. A strong trust must be among the team members and team leader so that people don't take advantage of each other in these moments of sacrifice.

Then another point is "crossing" roles. Helping others. If someone is more skilled and talented and can easily do their share but someone else has problems then team members should help each other. I dislike the kind of behavior "I already did my job. Now you do yours. I'm not going to help you". Generally among professionals the competence differences are not big enough for this kind of situations to be common but when rookies or new people are brought to the team then it is necessary that they are supported in the beginning instead of taking an aristocratic approach where more experienced team members separate themselves from "noobs" and instead of helping them like to mock them in order to make themselves feel better. This kind of "noob mocking" shows bad team spirit and I would not like these kind of people to be in my team.

Generally I think the team should consist of people who have similar level of talent and if that is not possible then the more talented team members should understand that this is how it is going to be and the less talented team members are full members of the team. And again team wins or loses together. This is a typical situation where "star players" who lack team spirit can totally destroy the team competence by concentrating on mocking the less talented people instead of doing double the usual effort (which would show that they have the right kind of team spirit). Again I stress the importance of a good team leader.

Ok there is some analysis on how I see teams and what kind of work environment I would feel most comfortable in. I'm not an idealist though and I understand that it is a rare case to achieve that kind of state. However I have been in a team which for quite a while was close to this and it was heaven. Eventually the lack of leadership in critical moments made that team disintegrate. I'm hopeful I can find that kind of place again perhaps with a better team leader I might even develop myself to be that team leader in mid-term future but currently I'd be happy with a sub-ordinate role in that kind of team. I'm not someone who naturally seeks to lead but I can only accept lack of leadership and badly functional and spiritless teams for a finite amount of time.

P.S. This is one of the most "ME" posts I have made. It is how I truly feel about the matter. So this is good material for typing. One of the best there is.

I like this post. I can identify with most of the posts that XoX has posted in this thread.

[XoX]

Brr. All of this makes me shiver. Not because I am one of those people you describe in the team destroyer cathegory. Just your description of a team.

Generally I like to play or work in teams. I still have a somewhat individualistic role of the "know-it-all", that is, the one that usually does the most complicated/laborious/creative work but does it by himself without much external collaboration, and that teaches other people how to do the more techincal parts of the work/project/etc. although I tend to get this role "by default". I also resent very much when the team leader tries to take a decision which concerns the strictly techincal/creative side of the job that I usually take over.

I hate when say in a soccer team some guy (usually the xSTj) goes like: OK SO WE HAVE TO ORGANIZE YOU THERE ME HERE YOU THERE. I really have a strong reaction and get neurotic, bitchy, snappy and venomous. However again, if not told what to do, I'm generally the one that deals with the most difficult parts/most fatiguing.

Just don't ask me to be part of the crappy group atmosphere and let me do my job.

I'm not sure if you understand it correctly. A good team does not (generally) force you to do something which is unnatural for you. The idea is to seek which role will make you shine the brightest. If you have a good team leader you will tell this story you just wrote to him (or her but I hate to always write him/her) and he will try to see where the team needs your abilities how you can be fitted in. Perhaps your role would be the "free role" but not all teams need this. Sometimes you just wouldn't fit the team where other teams might seriously need you. Anywas there are certain occasions when someone has to temporarily fulfill a role which is not their preferred role (in soccer this might be e.g. because of a critical injury or something). Doing these kind of "sacrifices" are one manifestation of good team spirit. But no one should do sacrifices all the time. It is not sustainable. Just when it is necessary to get that final edge against the opponent.

Abyways the main point about team spirit is that team success matters more to you than your own success. Even though in practice you can't have one without another and usually they go hand in hand you can approach the issue with different attitudes. "Team success comes first" is the trademark of good team spirit. As is "one for all and all for one" as manifested by the three musketeers.

Personally I think that a team with great spirit (be it in business or sports or war or anywhere) outperforms a badly spirited team any day. You really have to experience the magic of a well oiled team to understand it. A team where everybody knows their role and can use their best qualities at highest potentials day in and day out and are ready and willing to "take a bullet" for other team mates if necessary to grab the victory. Such team is extremely powerful and many times more powerful than the sum of its individuals.

I would think that special forces units in the army and the most successful sports teams best demonstrate this concept but it can also exist in a business setting. You can also get a slight grasp of the power of good teams by playing Utopia (http://games.swirve.com/UTOPIA) in a good kingdom. It is amazing what difference team spirit, cooperation and organization does. You can just completely destroy a less organized and devoted kingdom no matter how good individual players they have.

[XoX]

I like this post. I can identify with most of the posts that XoX has posted in this thread.

This is probably related to why ESTj is on top of my favourite co-workers list, lol.

[FDG]

Abyways the main point about team spirit is that team success matters more to you than your own success. Even though in practice you can't have one without another and usually they go hand in hand you can approach the issue with different attitudes. "Team success comes first" is the trademark of good team spirit. As is "one for all and all for one" as manifested by the three musketeers.
.

You know what it is, my problem isn't the partecipation in the act, but just thinking about it. Nobody has every complained about my actions in a team, but if you try to ask me whether I feel "part of the group", problems are going to arise.

As an example regarding the point above. If the objective is good, and/or the product appreciated, then there's not even need for recognition of the single members of a team. It has worked, now everything's done, the object producted speaks for itself, in my mind. On the same route i've never understood why people party after a school success, a team success etc etc...

[Expat]

FDG, this thread reminds me why at one point we thought we were the same type and could even read each other's minds I agree with everything you said, in letter and spirit.

@XoX

What makes me shiver - and, I believe, FDG - is the focus on having to "believe" in the "team spirit" which I see as brainwashing.

A lot of the things you attribute to "team spirit" I see as simply being a professional: sharing information, being ready to support your colleagues if necessary, never saying "I already did my job" if someone needs your help, doing whatever you can to reach the project's or the company's goals - simply because that's your job.

What I can't agree with are things like this:

If you are the best scorer in the league but you fail to win the championship then you should not be proud since you are a loser and a failure. If you didn't score too many goals but the team still won you should be a proud champion. Team success is what matters.

Who gives you or your team leader the right to even take into consideration how I am supposed to feel? That's not your business, it's not the company's business, it's not the team's business - how I feel is my business and my business only. What I do in the performance of my job - if the rules (more so than the roles) are clear, yes, that's the company's business, and some of the "team destroying behavior" you mentioned is indeed part of what I shouldn't do.

In the paragraph above -- no way. If I do an excellent job as an individual, I will damn right feel "proud" (in the sense of being contented with my job) of that even if the whole company went bust. Yes, for reasons of civility, politeness, fairness, political awareness, humilty even, I won't brag about about it and much less blame others (especially since who exactly achieved what is often blurred), but why should I not feel satisfaction at the job I did?

Conversely, if I did a crappy job but everyone else in the "team" made it work despite my incompetence, of course I will feel like shit. I will feel like a parasite and a stone hanging on others' necks, and aim at doing better next time, even if it's not asked of me because the "team" succeeded.

I do know what it implies in Socionics but I will decline to say it.

[discojoe]

I don't mind being in a teamwork environment, so long as it in no way affects anything I do. That's one reason I could never join the army; the level of camaraderie borders on oral sex.

Another thing about "team-building" is that it is essentially -building in disguise. Only good for Fe types who need to be in that kind of environment.

[Blaze]

i can actually work well with almost anyone. it's better to ask me who i don't work well with rather than who i do work well with.

NOT: infj's. particularly if they are my supervisor. i just can't do anything right if i am both their work supervisee and their socionics supervisee. i am powerless, there is tension, and nothing i do is ever enough.

NOT: isfj's. too much conflict. we just see things totally opposite and vibe each other even if we try not to. i can actually be acquaintences with them, even bordering on friends, but in a work environment, it's just too much.

everyone else, i can pretty much deal with.

[Phaedrus]

Okay, I'll try to comment on some aspects of XoX's talk about team "spirit" etc.

I generally work best with people who want to get concrete results of extraordinary quality but are patient and thoughtful instead of just rushing to do things quickly.

Me too, but that doesn't tell us much.

I like people to have strong team spirit like in team sports where everyone knows their role and is appreciated and the team wins or loses together.

I can relate to that. In general I work best alone, but if in a team of some sort I want every member of the team to share the same overall "goal" or "understanding" of where the team is going. Once I worked for a short period with an organization as a Swedish language consultant. I analyzed their internal and external information channels, and one thing that I realized very clearly in that process was that I strongly tended think (and I still do) that it is a good thing to have a common policy, a common agenda, a common feeling of self-identity. What do we who work in the same company or organization think is important? What are the company's ideals? How do we describe ourselves and our values? I have realized that such questions are not often asked at the workplace, and if asked are not taken very seriously. Maybe they are not worth taking seriously, but that is irrelevant here, since we are discussing XoX's type and how he might be different or similar to me.

I don't like people who have hidden agendas and do solo stuff without considering the team goal.

Neither do I.

Also I seriously hate backstabbers as well as people who network "behind the scenes" in order to raise their own value but not the teams value.

I agree with that too -- unless the team or organization is corrupt and I am trying, with the help of a minority group of people inside or outside the organization, to change its course or dethrone the leaders.

I want people to dedicate themselves to reaching the common goal and do whatever it takes to get there. I want people to be able to make compromises when there are two or more conflicting views.

I can be a lazy guy, and I will not accept working at the same pace or in the same way as an ENTj does. That would stress me out. In general I also dislike compromises. I want people to reach a consensus based on good arguments; the best alternative should be chosen regardless of how many are proponents of it. But I am always looking for possible syntheses of different views. Every alternative deserves a fair chance, and maybe the best solution has something in it from every view that has been suggested by different people.

I dislike people who always want to do things their way even if it starts to hinder the team spirit and general team effectiveness. I dislike people who provide useless criticism which only slows things down but I do like people who are not afraid to say their opinion out loud when they disagree.

I probably agree with that, but who wouldn't?

Generally I want to be in a team with competent, enterprising and committed people who make extraordinary things happen but also can accept a loss and failure and rebuild from that without starting to accuse each other. I don't like people who have huge ego and are sensitive of that.

General stuff which most people probably agree with to some extent.

I also dislike people who require formal interaction and formal procedures to be used in the team communication or who stress about the hiearchy too much.

I agree with that. Maybe it suggests P and Democratic, but I would not put too much weight to it.

I like the concept of team. Team consists of a group of inviduals who have come together to achieve a goal. They have joined their forces because as a team they can achieve more than working as individuals.

Well ... I agree with that as a genaral truth about human behaviour and what is rational seen from a game-theoretical perspective, but I am not a person who naturally identifies with a team or an organization. If I and others can achieve what we want better together than alone it's fine, otherwise I want to have the option of coming to a different conclusion than the group has.

I'm also stressing that when run correctly team performs better than just the sum of its individuals. It is an oiled machine which cannot be stopped This is why individuality must be of second concern in professional team.

Yes, that is an illustration of what I just said.

Team naturally has members who have somewhat differing skill sets. Some people are probably more talented, intelligent, socially capable than others and there are differences in educational background and level of experience. Team leader should be someone who is able to assign each person a "role" where they can best utilize their talents and skills. No one should be "forced" to some role where they don't fit. This would be counterproductive. If a person doesn't have a suitable role in a team then another person should fill his/her place. It is all about finding a "role" where your own special talents are utilized to the max. In some cases the optimal role might be a "free role" not a clearly defined role. Usually it is clearly defined though and there is only room for "free role" people in some teams.

I completely agree with this. This is exactly how I see it. I believe in the importance of seeing the differences between people more than the similarities (Negativist ...). People are born with different personalities and different talents, and to believe that people should try to conform to some sort of common standard or be more alike is a big mistake. In a free market echonomy these biological differences between people have a huge positive impact on society as a whole, whereas an extreme socialist society is contrary to human nature and is therefore a much worse solution, because socialism is based on the premise that people in general are very similar. And if they are not, they should be changed. All these considerations are in line with both biological and game-theoretical findings, and I see Socionics as a potentially very powerful tool with which we can make our team efforts more effective and which in the end could benefit everyone.

In a highly functional team the common goal is more important than individual goals. Thing about a soccer team. There are strikers who score goals. There are goal tenders who try to prevent others from scoring goals. And so on. Strikers of course want to score as many goals as possible. Goal tenders want to keep their goal "clean". These personal meters are however secondary and the primary goal is that the TEAM wins. It doesn't matter if the striker only scored one goal if the team still won. It doesn't matter if the striker scored ten goals if the team still lost. Achieving things as a team is what matters. Personal glory naturally follows from team success and the more talented players get more respect and bigger paycheck than the less talented ones. However personal achievements mean nothing if team loses. If you are the best scorer in the league but you fail to win the championship then you should not be proud since you are a loser and a failure. If you didn't score too many goals but the team still won you should be a proud champion. Team success is what matters.

An illustration of what is said above. I can't disagree. ( Hm ... So far I have found less about XoX's "team spirit" talk to disagree with than I thought I would ...)

Some people have a tendency to not really be part of the team.

In most situations that applies to me ...

They kind of work with the team but are not really committed.

... but either I am committed or I try not to get involved at all.

They try to avoid responsibilities or too tight attachment with the team.

In a general sense that is true of me. My preferred role in a team is that of the "free role" that XoX mentioned as a possibility above. I am probably best as an advisor, someone who analyzes what happens from an "observer's" perspective.

If the team fails to achieve their goals then these people quickly distance themselves from the team and claim they are not responsible for the failure. If the team is successful they like to take credit of the success and claim victory as if they were a part of the team. I dislike this behavior. These are sort of "free raiders".

I agree with that.

Then some people are too individualistic. They work with the team but they are mostly concerned about their own performance. They don't really care about the team goals but instead have their own goals (which I call "hidden agendas"). The team is just a place where they leech resources in order to achieve their own hidden goals. I dislike this.

I agree with that too of course, but again who wouldn't if it is described in that way? It all depends on what we mean here. I think I understand what XoX is trying to say, but I also think that it can be misinterpreted. It is important not to confuse this talk about "team spirit" with the attitudes of those who are natural born team workers -- something INTps are not.

Then there are the "team spirit destroyers". One example are so called "star players" i.e. very talented people who at the time of failure blame the weaker team members for the loss and at the time of success try to take all credit for themselves. This is counterproductive behavior and I would not like to have these kind of eccentric star players in my team. Ok, sometimes someone is just SO good that the rest of the team has to put up with them even if they show team spirit killing behavior. In long term I wouldn't keep this kind of person in my team though. Only when their skills are needed for something critical. A real star player is someone who does their own work perfectly but still sticks with the team both in the moment of failure and success. Everybody knows their value without them having to make a big deal about it. A team spirited star player would always say "we lost" or "we won" instead of saying "THEY lost" or "I won".

Isn't all of this just another way of expressing what has already been said and commented upon? I have nothing to add.

I wish the team has open information sharing and all personal agendas are brought to the table and discussed. Individual needs are met as well as possible (both in personal career development as well as assigning team roles in a particular project).

Hm ... I interpret this as very similar to how I described my own view on sharing common ideals, goals, etc. The most important thing in my opinion is to have a clear and open communication. It is very important to understand each other's point of view. Key words in that process are "clarity" and "simplicity". I always try to find the essence of something (typical INTp trait, by the way).

However compromises have to be made and sometimes individual is needed to do something which is not quite what they had in mind. In these cases a good team player does their best no matter what they eventually have to do. Whatever it takes for the team to win. A good team leader is needed to manage the team in this kind of situations. A strong team spirit and commitment is needed in order for individuals to make temporary personal sacrifices for the team. A strong trust must be among the team members and team leader so that people don't take advantage of each other in these moments of sacrifice.

If you decide to be part of the team the above is true. But noone should be forced to be part of a team against their own will.

Then another point is "crossing" roles. Helping others. If someone is more skilled and talented and can easily do their share but someone else has problems then team members should help each other. I dislike the kind of behavior "I already did my job. Now you do yours. I'm not going to help you". Generally among professionals the competence differences are not big enough for this kind of situations to be common but when rookies or new people are brought to the team then it is necessary that they are supported in the beginning instead of taking an aristocratic approach where more experienced team members separate themselves from "noobs" and instead of helping them like to mock them in order to make themselves feel better. This kind of "noob mocking" shows bad team spirit and I would not like these kind of people to be in my team.

If there really is a good team spirit, no one would feel any need not to help others. But it might be important to be very clear about the exact roles and responsibilities each member of the team should have. Not doing that could destroy the possibility of a good team spirit.

Generally I think the team should consist of people who have similar level of talent and if that is not possible then the more talented team members should understand that this is how it is going to be and the less talented team members are full members of the team.

I don't think it is necessary that a team consists of people with the same level of talent. People have different skills, and a heterogeneous group can of course be better than an homogeneous group. But otherwise I agree.

And again team wins or loses together. This is a typical situation where "star players" who lack team spirit can totally destroy the team competence by concentrating on mocking the less talented people instead of doing double the usual effort (which would show that they have the right kind of team spirit). Again I stress the importance of a good team leader.

Is there anything controversial about this?

Ok there is some analysis on how I see teams and what kind of work environment I would feel most comfortable in. I'm not an idealist though and I understand that it is a rare case to achieve that kind of state.

Neither I am an idealist, but I have felt like one on some occasions, for example when I worked with the organization I mentioned in the beginning of this post.

I'm not someone who naturally seeks to lead but I can only accept lack of leadership and badly functional and spiritless teams for a finite amount of time.

Ditto.


Hmmm ... The result was somewhat surprising actually. It seems as though I could relate to almost everything XoX said, and that was not my initial impression when I skimmed through it, although I felt that there were things I agreed with.

What makes me shiver - and, I believe, FDG - is the focus on having to "believe" in the "team spirit" which I see as brainwashing.

I have had the same doubts occasionally, for example during my work with the organization. It was like discovering a slightly new side to my personality. But would it have to be brainwashing if the "team spirit" is the result of people identifying with a common policy (ideal) that they have been able to formulate together after an open debate where nothing is left hidden?

A lot of the things you attribute to "team spirit" I see as simply being a professional: sharing information, being ready to support your colleagues if necessary, never saying "I already did my job" if someone needs your help, doing whatever you can to reach the project's or the company's goals - simply because that's your job.

I agree. But the risk I see in not trying to formulate a common understanding is that too many people take things for granted based on the false assumption that most people are like themselves.

[XoX]

You said many of the things I described are more or less just obvious. Well that actually is one of the main points. If you want to achieve maximum effectiveness then these things become obvious. Anyone who refuses to "submit" to this mind set is not seeking to optimize the objective effectiveness but instead choose to aim for suboptimal because of subjective reasons.
I might write more later. Right now I'm in a bit of a hurry. It seems we are very much alike btw.

[XoX]

Another thing about "team-building" is that it is essentially -building in disguise. Only good for Fe types who need to be in that kind of environment.

If it is done out of need to just belong to a team it points to Fe. As in stating that working alone is something no one should do. Here the team itself becomes the value instead of what the team produces.

If it is done out of need to optimally utilize the cumulative talents of a group of people it points more to Te imho.

Perhaps my message is still a bit unclear. I don't NEED to be in a team. However when I am in a team I want it to be "optimized" and working as "one" not just as loose group of individuals. I seek some sort of symbiotic relation between team members. I prefer being in an optimized team to working alone since you can just achieve so much more. This is the obvious message of socionics too. No one masters all the functions. However I have a tendency to become a "loner" and a bit rebellious and passive-aggressive if I disagree with how the team is managed. This was well evidenced in my relations with my ex-ENTp boss. (Edit: this behavior might on the surface seem like lack of team spirit on my side but according to my definition it is not lack of team spirit is what leads me to take distance from the team not the other way around)

[vague]

I both like and dislike working in teams. I like it because what I produce receives attention from more eyes. My team members are obligated to give a damn because my part affects theirs so they are more likely to offer an honest evaluation of how I've done. I dislike it because I feel less connected to the results of the group effort.

I am able to adjust myself to work well with most types, although I prefer irrationals.

Consistently, I have the most problems with…

ESTjs—the prey who viewed the crocodile as a log. They do not stop to collect all of the details before jumping to conclusions.

ISTjs—too inflexible. are of the impression that “their thought process” and “proper work” are synonymous.

ESXps--distracting in the social aspect. Expect sass if you offer helpful criticism.

ESFj—too unpredictable and caught in the details.

[FDG]

I can be a lazy guy, and I will not accept working at the same pace or in the same way as an ENTj does.

Oh, I'm starting to maybe see why you like teams...

In a general sense that is true of me. My preferred role in a team is that of the "free role" that XoX mentioned as a possibility above. I am probably best as an advisor, someone who analyzes what happens from an "observer's" perspective.

I understand why you like teams then. You're the one that does nothing.

I agree with that too of course, but again who wouldn't if it is described in that way?

Me. I don't leech resources but I couldn't care less if resources were leeched by somebody else, generally.

What makes me shiver - and, I believe, FDG - is the focus on having to "believe" in the "team spirit" which I see as brainwashing.

I have had the same doubts occasionally, for example during my work with the organization. It was like discovering a slightly new side to my personality. But would it have to be brainwashing if the "team spirit" is the result of people identifying with a common policy (ideal) that they have been able to formulate together after an open debate where nothing is left hidden?
[/quote]

To my eyes, never. Everybody MUST be left to function to their own devices. This means that of course everybody can accept believing in a "common cause", but they also have to give me the option not to believe in it.

Now honestly another point of why I don't exactly enjoy team work. I end up being the one that does everything. "..but you are faster" "...but you know more things" "...but you can work 10 hours straight without feeling bad". Not to mention that some people are even able to get envious if I do something quicker, even if I've done it quickly just because I can go doing my thing afterwards. Better stay away from this stuff really.

Honestly, I think that where I have worked the best was when the "boss" figured out that he could overload me with work as much as he wanted as long as he let me chat and flirt with all the girls of the workplace THIS is usually a situation I don't mind.

[stefana]

I can be a lazy guy, and I will not accept working at the same pace or in the same way as an ENTj does.

Oh, I'm starting to maybe see why you like teams...

In a general sense that is true of me. My preferred role in a team is that of the "free role" that XoX mentioned as a possibility above. I am probably best as an advisor, someone who analyzes what happens from an "observer's" perspective.

I understand why you like teams then. You're the one that does nothing.

LOL... *shakes head*

Now honestly another point of why I don't exactly enjoy team work. I end up being the one that does everything. "..but you are faster" "...but you know more things" "...but you can work 10 hours straight without feeling bad". Not to mention that some people are even able to get envious if I do something quicker, even if I've done it quickly just because I can go doing my thing afterwards. Better stay away from this stuff really.

which was why XoX typed out such a lengthy canon on the "do's and don'ts of an effective team". overworking can be reduced if you are co-operating with other similarly dedicated individuals but i know this is easier said than done. in reality, you don't always end up working with such team members. by the way, lying low (behaving like you know less than you actually do) can get some of these freeloading vultures of your back.

[XoX]

I think a true INTp would feel the outside pressure to get "involved" in a group emotionally in a sort of team spirit as sort of agonizing torture, a living hell.

*shudder*

"Team spirit" is degrading at the very best.

Assuming you understand what I mean and I understand what you mean and all other INTps feel the same then it is unlikely that I'm INTp The thing that keeps me from dropping INTp is the fact that I tend to often test myself as INTp and relate to INTp descriptions. Other than that the case for INTp seems very weak.

If I'm in a team I'm there for work, not for an emotional experience.

This sort of thing...

However personal achievements mean nothing if team loses. If you are the best scorer in the league but you fail to win the championship then you should not be proud since you are a loser and a failure. If you didn't score too many goals but the team still won you should be a proud champion. Team success is what matters.

...makes me sick, for pretty much exactly the same reasons Expat mentioned.

I am not the team, and something so personal as my emotions is not to be dictated by what the team "should" be feeling or meaningless ideals of "team spirit".

I tend to think that you both are just missing the point of "team spirit" because you keep emphasizing the less important parts. But I'm not sure.

Once more...if the team loses but you feel happy then it kind of implies that you were not seriously committed to the team goal at the first place and probably could have done more to get the win. You can of course be happy about the fact that you did good (that is obvious) but if you don't feel any disappointment about the team failing then you are definately not what I call a team player. Then if the team wins but you sucked then ok it is reasonable to be disappointed in your own performance since well sucking continuously will get you sacked. People naturally have a need to be good instead of bad. Still the main goal was that TEAM WINS and this was achieved. So if you care about the team at all it is reasonable to expect than you can feel happy about the overall success. It is natural that you will suck occasionally. That is why a concept of team is important in the first place. It doesn't matter if individuals have bad days because the team can compensate that. And a team with good spirit allows occasional lapses. I already said I don't like free raiders and that all team members should contribute in long term.

So yes I'm here "dictating" what people should feel if they are team players according to my definition. I don't say you HAVE TO feel that way. I'm saying that if you feel otherwise then you don't fit the definition of team player. So I don't force you to feel some specific way (like perhaps Fe dominant would?). I'm just making judgements about your motivations and character based on how you react to certain situations.

So is this attitude Fe>Fi then? Keeping track of how people react to certain kind of situations and making judgements about their character based on that? Or is it just pure Ni (modeling their personality and what consequences it has to successful mutual interation and so on). And if this is Fe>Fi then is it more FeNi or NiFe?

[XoX]

I get back to this...slightly busy at the moment...just wanted to add that I guess it is in practice quite natural to feel bad if you have failed your own part even if the team wins. An awesome team player can still be happy but this is a bit inhumane requirement perhaps. It hits your personal future perhaps too hard.

So, much worse and the real test for "team spirit" is if someone feels happy when the team loses. This feeling is usually based on some subjective criteria according to which they "performed good". If the team lost then they didn't perform good _enough_ to achieve the goal. Thus they failed. Thus they SHOULD be UNHAPPY about it This is bad character in people imho. But feeling bad about failing to do your part...well ok if you go from theory to practice that is quite reasonable.

[XoX]

I think a true INTp would feel the outside pressure to get "involved" in a group emotionally in a sort of team spirit as sort of agonizing torture, a living hell.

I think the functional preference is fairly obvious when you consider Expat's comment above.

What is been meant by "emotionally involved" here? I can see how a Fe PoLR type wouldn't want to get emotionally involved if that means using Fe. I'm now having trouble seeing if I'm talking about that kind of involvement or not...I didn't see it that way but Expat does which kind of bugs me and leaves me a bit confused.

Let's use a practical example. You are in a national ice hockey team trying to win the world championship for your country (or whatever ice hockey team if you don't relate strongly to your national team). Now are all people who are capable of committing themselves to the team in a way which can bring the championship home Fe people? I don't think you can win this kind of competition without "team spirit" as I defined it. I have no knowledge a team which has. So are Gammas and Deltas somehow naturally incapable of winning big championships in team sports? Are they incapable of forming an unstoppable military unit? Are they incapable of forming a hyper effective business unit? I just can't see how this kind of feats can be done without the kind of commitment I'm talking about. So Fe is what is needed in order to win a competition where teams are competing against teams? I never thought about it that way. That would make Fe awesomely powerful.

[XoX]

Why is it all about winning?

That is a good question Somehow I always talk in terms of winning and losing. I kind of see that in all situations that kind of division exists. Actually that is one of the main ways to motivate myself. If it is not about winning then why even bother?