A bookkeeper tells me, "He flies through here and drops some scribbled instructions on my desk, then gets annoyed when what I do isn't what he was looking for. How can I do my job correctly without getting the details I need? Maybe I should find a different job." A lead man confides, "I go in to talk about a concern I have and he seems to listen, and I feel good about it at the time — but then afterwards I'm not sure that anything concrete really happened."
Personality idiosyncrasies? Unprofessionalism? Lack of consideration? Not necessarily. Often such comments (and the actions that provoke them) are due to differences in personality styles. There are many systems for classifying styles, and they can be divided into two camps: those that sort people according to inner states (Jungian psychology, for example), and those that sort people according to their behaviors.
Personality Types
The behavioral classifications are easier to understand because they're based on what you see people doing. Among this group are several models, but the one I like best is described in People Styles at Work, by Robert and Dorothy Grover Bolton.
The book is short and easy to read, and contains a simple 18-question "Behavioral Inventory." The authors identify four personality styles based on a grid in which the X axis describes degree of Assertiveness (to what extent your actions are seen by others as forceful) and the Y axis describes degree of Responsiveness (to what extent you are perceived to show your feelings or to be aware of others' feelings).
Each person falls primarily into one of four boxes: high assertiveness and high responsiveness (Expressives), high assertiveness and low responsiveness (Drivers), low assertiveness and high responsiveness (Amiables), and low assertiveness and low responsiveness (Analyticals).
I am an Expressive: My voice is loud, my gestures are sweeping, I am very people-oriented, I offer opinions easily and confidently. My facial expression is open; strangers on the street tell me their problems.
My Driver husband, Ed, is quiet, structured, logical. He struggles with small talk but speaks easily and authoritatively within his areas of strength. His face is less expressive, but people who know him confide in him readily.
My soft-spoken Amiable aunt goes along with everybody in order to make people feel good, and she would never dream of criticizing folks to their face for fear of hurting their feelings. Her expression is animated, she maintains constant eye contact, she's methodical and detail-oriented, and she's skilled at picking up on others' moods. Everybody tells her about his or her problems.
An Analytical for whom my husband worked lacked social skills to the extent that he was unable to engage in conversation unless it was argumentative. He preferred to work alone on challenging problems, was extremely systematic, and had almost no facial expression. Nobody would ever bother to tell him about his or her problems.
It's not hard to figure out that an Expressive would probably be a more effective motivational speaker than an Analytical, and that an Amiable would probably make a better customer-service representative than a Driver.
It's important to note that although the Boltons identify four types for purposes of discussion, the grid is meant to represent a continuum of traits: Each individual will of course have components and behaviors from each of the four boxes. The labels are for identifying each individual's primary or most often displayed behaviors.
Real-Life Applications
The bookkeeper in the opening paragraph of this story is an Amiable. She's detail-oriented; she wants to do a good job, to have the boss appreciate her work, and to retain her place within the group. But fear of displeasing the boss and frustration with his avoidance of detailed instructions are making her consider leaving.
The lead man is an Analytical. He has carefully noted things that could be improved and enters into conversation with a list of questions, grievances, and suggestions to be covered. He is focused and results-oriented.
The boss in both cases is an Expressive with a relatively low logic component. He is charismatic, flamboyant, and impatient; he wants simple, fast solutions. He frustrates the bookkeeper because he's not highly structured and detail-oriented, and it would never occur to him that somebody else needs those qualities.
He fails to provide the lead man with what he wants, too — a detailed plan for improvement and the discipline and attention required to follow through. He's seeing bigger pictures and instinctively says what needs to be said to win back the lead man's loyalty. This is not a deliberate avoidance technique; he's simply behaving in a way that feels natural to him and that takes care of the situation to his satisfaction. And this is why the lead man feels good during the meeting and only later realizes that, feelings aside, no tangible changes have been made.
A Word to the Wise
When dealing with people whose style occupies a vastly different position on the grid than yours, it's important to keep several principles in mind.
First, be aware of your own style and its accompanying mannerisms and needs. Second, consider the other person's position on the grid and acknowledge that his or her mannerisms and needs may be different than yours. And third, modify your behavior and expectations somewhat to allow the other person's needs to be met. Accept that you may want to speak more slowly and softly to an Amiable than to an Expressive, and that you may want to stick to an agenda and reduce small talk when dealing with an Analytical.
This isn't manipulating or giving in; it's acknowledging that our perceptions of — and expectations for — other people's behavior and needs are based on our own, and that everybody's style is equally valid.
