Introduction | General Characteristics | Myers-Briggs
Comparison | Observations | Summary/Conclusions | Appendix A

Observations

From this analysis, we are now in a position to make some assessment of the numbers of different types of project-suited people in the population at large. Figure 4 shows an MBTI grid with a few key words from the appendix to reflect the "project management flavor" of those in each cell, and their approximate percentage in the population at large. For ease of reference, each cell in the grid is referenced according to its position on each of the four basic MBTI axes shown in Figure 2. However, the grid has been re-oriented to match the orientation of our Figure 1.

Explorer			N	Driver
	INTJ 1% compelling vision self-confident strategic creative drive	INTP 1% vision concentrated analytical impatient not a builder		ENTP 5% alert to next move analytical good judge too many projects restless	ENTJ 5% drive to lead harnesses people structured pushes hard enjoys     responsibility
	INFJ 1% strong contributor consistent looks to the future enjoy problems good at    public relations	INFP 1% idealistic prefers values,    not goals perfectionist impatient    with details		ENFP 5% has influence skilled with people likes drama emotional gets team    off track	ENFJ 5% good leader charismatic cooperative organized good follower
I						E
	ISFJ 6% service oriented works hard dependable/    responsible likes stability down-to-earth	ISFP 5% hedonic impulsive not a planner spender, not saver insubordinate		ESFP 13% adept at selling excellent at PR enjoys    entertaining impulsive conceals problems	ESFJ 13% sociable interacts well orderly conscientious needs    appreciation
	ISTJ 6% practical, thorough persevering patient decisive not a risk taker	ISTP 7% impulsive thrives on    excitement hunger for action irresponsible dislike for    authority		ESTP 13% resourceful manipulative ruthlessly    pragmatic no follow-through antisocial	ESTJ 13% responsible dependable highly organized loyal, in tune pillar of strength
Coordinator			S	Administrator
Note: the percentages show the approximate proportion of the type in the total population

Figure 4: The MBTI Grid as seen from the Project Management Perspective

Figure 5 shows the same grid used previously but shaded to reflect six different "project personality" types relative to suitability for project management teamwork. If our analysis is reasonably correct, then we may deduce that the "project" population is distributed as follows. The Explorer (entrepreneur) type makes up only about 1-2% of the population. Rather more, some 5-10%, are of the Driver (marshal) type. A similar number of Coordinator (catalyst) people are available for facilitative type duties. There are considerably more, 25-30%, Administrator (stabilizer) 'professional" types. Another 20-25% are probably more suited as "followers". That still leaves about a third of the population who are most likely uncomfortable and unsuited to working on projects at all.

If you consider a traditional, "established technology" project, Shenhar and Wideman have suggested that the "Concept" phase of a four-phase generic life cycle should start out with an "Explorer" type; proceed with a "Coordinator" in the "Definition" or planning phase; move to an assertive "Driver" type in the "Execution" phase; and conclude with an "Administrator" type in the clean-up "Finishing" phase. They have further suggested that failure to match an appropriate style to project circumstances can quickly demoralize the project team and lead to unsatisfactory project results.[6]

Figure 5: The MBTI Grid and Suitability to Project Management Teamwork

If these relationships are anywhere close, then for a typical enterprise contemplating moving to a project oriented style of management, about a third of the work force may be unsuited to working in the new environment. Thus, it is a mistake to think that everyone will be highly motivated by working on projects. At the same time, in a workforce population of say 100, only one or two people are seriously capable of successfully conceptualizing a project, and then, no doubt, only if they have sound project management experience. Indeed, in this size of firm, perhaps only the CEO and his or her senior vice president are thus suited.

Comparison of the Two Sets of Descriptions

Summary/Conclusions

Home | Issacons | PM Glossary | Papers & Books | Max's Musings
Guest Articles | Contact Info | Top of Page