Diagnosing a Type

We all have default personality styles, probably from childhood, but we can perform differently, if not quite as competently, when necessary. Most people have multiple traits. I’m a (P) when I wash my car, I’m an (A) when I’m in the office, I’m an (E) when I’m with my clients and I’m an (I) when I’m with my kids. We all have these traits to some degree, but which one predominates will shift depending on the situation.

Still, we all lean toward one or another style; for instance, I am predominantly an (E). I can do (A) work, but let me tell you, after a few hours, I’m exhausted. For me, being a bookkeeper would be a punishment. On the other hand, for a bookkeeper to stand in front of a crowd and speak would be a punishment.

Now, we know that the way to avoid miscommunication is to match your communication style to the style of the person you’re talking to. But how can you know the best communication method if we all behave differently according to the circumstances?

People often ask me if there are tests they can administer that will determine a person’s style. After my first book was published, I discovered that the four basic management styles I had outlined closely matched Carl Jung’s four personality types.

There is a test available here that measures (PAEI) style. It’s called the Adizes Leadership Indicators Suite (ALIS) test, as you believe it is what you want it to be and what your task demands it to be.

Such tests can be useful as an aid in the hiring process. But aside from that, I do not believe that testing is an effective strategy or solution for knowing someone you are already working with.

Why not? First of all, you cannot simply refuse to talk to someone until he’s taken a psychological test. But more to the point, testing is the (A)dministrative, bureaucratic, mechanistic method of learning about people; in other words, it is precisely wrong.

What is the approximate right way? Simply being sensitive to people. Try to understand who they are and how they behave. Feel them. Watch them, listen to them, and try to communicate, and if you are misunderstood, assume that you guessed wrong about their style and try something else.

It isn’t as random as it sounds because it’s also dictated by the situation. If you’ve worked with someone for a long time, you come to recognize his basic working style. I can tell that the president of my institute is an (I), and everybody there knows it, not only me. My chief (A)dministrative officer is an (A), my sales manager is a (P). Everyone at the institute knows this and can see it in the way these people handle various situations.

For example, my sales manager always has a very simple answer, no matter what the question is. Everything is very simple, very short and to the point. “Done. Next question?” He’s a (P). I hired him because he was a (P). If you know what they are, you know how they’ll behave and whether they will fit the position you need to fill.

Still, there will be times when a person’s customary style changes in order to adapt to changing conditions. When you sense that happening, try to use the language for the style that’s being exhibited. You, too, have to be adaptive.

What should you do if you don’t know the person well or at all? In that case, ask questions and observe closely. Ask what job he performs. Look at the organization chart; it can tell you a lot. If the manager is in marketing, he is likely to be (E)-oriented. He should be (P)-oriented if he is in sales. If his job is in accounting, he will probably have an (A) orientation. This is not foolproof evidence, but it’s a clue.

From there, try to assess his style by observing his office, his desk, how he dresses, his posture, and his level of energy.

Again, I am really suggesting that you try to be sensitive to the other person. That’s the best test. Watch carefully to see whether he understands you or not, and continue to adapt your style to his until you see that he is comfortable with the style you are using and clearly grasps your meaning.

If the conversation happens to be a job interview but for some reason you are unable to administer a style quiz, there is a trick you can use during the interview that will cover the same ground: Tell the prospective employee that he is allowed to ask you ten questions about the position – not nine and not eleven; exactly ten. You will answer these questions fully so that he will have all of the information he needs to decide whether to take the job or not if it is offered.

Then sit back and classify your job candidate’s questions in (PAEI) terms. A (P) question for instance, will be “What would my responsibilities be, exactly?” An (A) type question is: “What is the compensation package?” An (E) type question is: “Explain the company’s goals and forecast its future.” And an (I) type question is: “Tell me about the people who work here.”

The sequence of the job candidate’s questions, and how many (P), (A), (E), or (I) questions he asked, will give you an approximate picture of his style.

The Managerial Mix

We noted in Chapter 5 that for good management we need a complementary team in which each member is himself a good manager. The team members must complement one another and thereby form a (PAEI) team. There are innumerable combinations of skills and personality traits that can add up to a (PAEI) team; it might be composed of a (Paei), a (pAei), a (paEi), and a (paeI), for example. Even better would be a team composed of a (PaeI), a (pAeI), and a (paEI), since all will perform well in (I)ntegration. Such teams lead to an effective and efficient organization in the short and long run.

But if there are only (PaeI)s on the managerial team, no matter how many of them there are, the organization will be mismanaged.

Some organizations, having accepted the view that one person cannot do the management job alone, have tried to develop the concept of “chief executive office” – several executives who jointly should manage the organization. Very often this approach fails, however, because the executives make the mistake of appointing people like themselves to be on the team: An (A) executive will hire other (A)s; a (P) executive will hire other (P)s. This is a prescription for certain failure; in order to effectively perform the complex task of managing for the short and the long run, a team must have style differences among its members, and those differences must be accepted and respected.

If you truly want to unlock your organization’s potential and analyze your team's roles and managerial personality, you can contact us here!