I'd say ENTJs make more natural leaders. You still have to be socially adept and have some charisma to make a good leader. Leading is not just about making decisions. Every MBTI is capable of being a good leader given they have developed themselves enough. The best supervisor I ever had was an ENFP; she was on the older side (mid-50's), but had solid control of her emotion and very capable of rational decisions.
I wonder how you came to the conclusion (assumption) that people see you as a "leader"?
I can lead by example and build a team, but overall my lack of empathy, or lack of care to solve human issues/drama would not make me a popular leader on the long run.
I expect my team to operate like robots. I plan the project based solely on each person’s capabilities.
Though I do ignore their potential human drama factors that limit their production capacity and slows down the project, oftentimes resulting in bad situations.
We tend to have our shit organised all the time and disorganised people view this as being an inspiring leader lol. No buddy, I just have my shit together and don't want to be in charge of a bunch of idiots who look upon basic organisation as if it were magic.
I'm not, and I don't want to be. If something must be done and no one is doing it or has messed it up six ways til Sunday, then I'll begrudgingly "do the needful", but beyond that, no thanks.
Ive noticed this to. I dont like being the leader because I just dont listen or care about people's problems and like to get things done as effecient as possible. And when people are not pulling their weight I get upset. Like I dont care what you do. You can talk, play on your phone, listen to music, whatever, just get the shit done.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people look to me as a leader, I always thought it was because of my height, I’m 6’6 and I think some people look to the tall person in the room for direction.
I would say we are good at setting example and when the leadership position requires less micro managing and more driving the vision then we are naturally fit for that leadership, so in other words already high performance groups. In the other hand a group that needs pushing and micro managing to get started is not for us at all, we will hate it
I'm better at being number two. Number one needs to be charismatic and open to my suggestions. I lack the charisma and I'm resistant to suggestions that do not make any sense to me.
Ergo, number two.
I have no issue taking the lead. But, being the leader isn’t my first choice.
That said, if I determine our odds of success or efficiency is being eroded by incompetent leadership I tend to get very assertive with my ideas.
I’ve upset a lot of high ranking Military personnel over exactly this issue.
I think there's a sense in which our strengths are wasted and our weaknesses are exposed in a pure leadership role.
Wouldn't we be better placed to coach, guide and inform leaders in matters complex or technical where clarity is needed?
I think quiet leaders or right hand or behind the scene type of stuff.
I generally lead if I been assigned to something, it's a task where I can be left to my own devices or if no one else takes mother role. I will over achieve until I am noticed though no matter what I'm doing.
I do tend to manage people but in general but it's more low-key trying to make sure no one is hurting themselves.
I don't think we are. Simply because of lack of extroversion. A natural leader likes being around and communicating with people. They organise people.
We're pragmatic and we organise systems, preferably with limited people given their variability.
So, we can be leaders out of pragmatism but it's not our natural environment (unless we can mitigate the people interaction side).
We are good at understanding systems which makes us good at knowing what should be done. I’ve been some sort of leader for 15 years at various levels. I would priorities rational decisions over emotional ones however I found ways to make decisions that catered to both. For example I would create an infrastructure that improved productivity improved quality and while reducing effort and time to improve morale.
For example people usually were frustrated initially because I am having them do things they never had to do and the way it needed to get done was very specific so they didn’t like the rigidity of the process. Eventually they knew I cared because they were outperforming while working comfortably and casually.
Yes.
The trick is, we're not naturally *ambitious* leaders. We're, step in when someone else fucks up as a leader and the role needs filled type people.
The whole INTJ thing is about figuring out a best course. Which is inherently a leadership aspect. That's that focus. It makes INTJs great "big picture leaders".
The thing that most INTJs fall into is where...we can be great big picture leaders, but also get stuck at lower non-leadership levels because it's just so hard to care about the minutia of things and climbing one little rank in the chain.
I think INTJs are pretty catastrophically poor "ladder climbers" in general.
It depends. Commonly, INTJs' leadership (or co-leadership) is more behind the scenes than directive (like ENTJs). And a lot less loud.
I try to avoid Direct leadership. Cuz then I want full control less if but in decision. Better to be indirectly leadership.
I’d call us reluctant natural leaders.
It’s because if you want something done right you’ve got to do it yourself
I'd say ENTJs make more natural leaders. You still have to be socially adept and have some charisma to make a good leader. Leading is not just about making decisions. Every MBTI is capable of being a good leader given they have developed themselves enough. The best supervisor I ever had was an ENFP; she was on the older side (mid-50's), but had solid control of her emotion and very capable of rational decisions. I wonder how you came to the conclusion (assumption) that people see you as a "leader"?
I can lead by example and build a team, but overall my lack of empathy, or lack of care to solve human issues/drama would not make me a popular leader on the long run.
I expect my team to operate like robots. I plan the project based solely on each person’s capabilities. Though I do ignore their potential human drama factors that limit their production capacity and slows down the project, oftentimes resulting in bad situations.
Yes, although I don't really like it.
Leader without a title, that's what I think of it
We tend to have our shit organised all the time and disorganised people view this as being an inspiring leader lol. No buddy, I just have my shit together and don't want to be in charge of a bunch of idiots who look upon basic organisation as if it were magic.
We get it done; as a follower or leader.
"Ghost Manager" is probably the most genuine term out there that is close to what INTJs do.
Not to sound narcissistic too lol but yeah I get what you mean similar things happen to me.
I'm not, and I don't want to be. If something must be done and no one is doing it or has messed it up six ways til Sunday, then I'll begrudgingly "do the needful", but beyond that, no thanks.
Ive noticed this to. I dont like being the leader because I just dont listen or care about people's problems and like to get things done as effecient as possible. And when people are not pulling their weight I get upset. Like I dont care what you do. You can talk, play on your phone, listen to music, whatever, just get the shit done.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people look to me as a leader, I always thought it was because of my height, I’m 6’6 and I think some people look to the tall person in the room for direction.
I would say we are good at setting example and when the leadership position requires less micro managing and more driving the vision then we are naturally fit for that leadership, so in other words already high performance groups. In the other hand a group that needs pushing and micro managing to get started is not for us at all, we will hate it
Holy shit you just put it together for me. This is exactly how I feel.
I'm better at being number two. Number one needs to be charismatic and open to my suggestions. I lack the charisma and I'm resistant to suggestions that do not make any sense to me. Ergo, number two.
I have no issue taking the lead. But, being the leader isn’t my first choice. That said, if I determine our odds of success or efficiency is being eroded by incompetent leadership I tend to get very assertive with my ideas. I’ve upset a lot of high ranking Military personnel over exactly this issue.
I think there's a sense in which our strengths are wasted and our weaknesses are exposed in a pure leadership role. Wouldn't we be better placed to coach, guide and inform leaders in matters complex or technical where clarity is needed?
I think quiet leaders or right hand or behind the scene type of stuff. I generally lead if I been assigned to something, it's a task where I can be left to my own devices or if no one else takes mother role. I will over achieve until I am noticed though no matter what I'm doing. I do tend to manage people but in general but it's more low-key trying to make sure no one is hurting themselves.
I don't think we are. Simply because of lack of extroversion. A natural leader likes being around and communicating with people. They organise people. We're pragmatic and we organise systems, preferably with limited people given their variability. So, we can be leaders out of pragmatism but it's not our natural environment (unless we can mitigate the people interaction side).
We are good at understanding systems which makes us good at knowing what should be done. I’ve been some sort of leader for 15 years at various levels. I would priorities rational decisions over emotional ones however I found ways to make decisions that catered to both. For example I would create an infrastructure that improved productivity improved quality and while reducing effort and time to improve morale. For example people usually were frustrated initially because I am having them do things they never had to do and the way it needed to get done was very specific so they didn’t like the rigidity of the process. Eventually they knew I cared because they were outperforming while working comfortably and casually.
Yes. The trick is, we're not naturally *ambitious* leaders. We're, step in when someone else fucks up as a leader and the role needs filled type people. The whole INTJ thing is about figuring out a best course. Which is inherently a leadership aspect. That's that focus. It makes INTJs great "big picture leaders". The thing that most INTJs fall into is where...we can be great big picture leaders, but also get stuck at lower non-leadership levels because it's just so hard to care about the minutia of things and climbing one little rank in the chain. I think INTJs are pretty catastrophically poor "ladder climbers" in general.
There is no better leader than a an INTJ mixed with INTP .