How effective are INTP leaders?

[Words]

I'm guessing not very.

The dominant and auxiliary functions (Ti and Ne) don't really seem "leader-like". By that I mean they don't have that "vision" nor that "drive" needed to "move" others. And the only ones that are more of this sort that INTP's have are the tertiary and inferior functions (Si, Fe); which are also "low-quality material" compared to Ni and Te. Furthermore, these are the tertiary and inferior functions! Therefore, a double in weakness.

So, by this line of thinking, INTP's are one of the least capable leaders.

The ranking being:

1. ENTJ & INTJ (Te Ni * *)
2. ENFJ & INFJ (Fe Ni * *)
3. ESTJ & ISTJ (Te Si * *)
4. ESFJ & ISFJ (Fe Si * *)
5. ESFP & ISFP ( * * Te Ni)
6. ESTP & ISTP (* * Fe Ni)
7. ENFP & INFP (* * Te Si)
8. ENTP & INTP (* * Fe Si)

I'm probably wrong here but I'm simply displaying it so someone could consider to try and enlighten me.

 

[Decaf]

There are two kinds of leaders. Leaders that command and leaders that urge. Both have their advantages, but I think INTPs are instinctively in the latter category. In my experience, most INTPs have a hard time telling someone what to do in specifics, but is happy to delegate and provide information. There are many situations where that is a superior tactic to what is generally considered the "management" mold.

All types have a lot of work to do in order to become good leaders, but some are much more likely to have done that work (having a greater interest in being in charge). Don't let that discourage you from developing those skills yourself, because its not outside our capacity, or even something we're specifically disadvantaged towards.

 

[Words]

Hopefully, that's true. I shouldn't blame personality for inabilities.

 

[Anthile]

I think INTPs in general make better second-in-commands with more privileges than a regular group member but more flexibility and not the full burden of responsibility.

 

[Zwaintsai]

INTPs in my opinion can make excellent leaders, even in the top of the hierarchy. What INTP lack is not as much the ability to make good decisions, but the unwillingness, inability and general distaste towards controlling people.

It really depends on what we think of as leadership. If it's the ability to take a group of potentially reclusive people and turn them into a team working for a common goal, you could call it 'social mobilisation,' then you would need someone with willingness to take charge, ability to maintain authority and manipulate the group socially. Clearly not INTPs strong points.

On the other hand you could have a position where people will obey you depending on the quality of decisions you make, like a group of professionals, high military positions, ect. I would choose an INTP over any other type for such a job. INTPs tend to be logical, rational and sure of their own opinions without being dictatorial, open-minded, fair, and most capable of understanding complex situations. And not prone to starting political purges, like say, INTJs.

So for a gang leader, and ESTJ, and for the dictator of the world, if such a position existed, an INTP.

 

[Words]

I think INTPs in general make better second-in-commands with more privileges than a regular group member but more flexibility and not the full burden of responsibility.

I think so too...generally. They seem the like the "right-hand man strategist" sort.

INTPs in my opinion can make excellent leaders, even in the top of the hierarchy. What INTP lack is not as much the ability to make good decisions, but the unwillingness, inability and general distaste towards controlling people.

It really depends on what we think of as leadership. If it's the ability to take a group of potentially reclusive people and turn them into a team working for a common goal, you could call it 'social mobilisation,' then you would need someone with willingness to take charge, ability to maintain authority and manipulate the group socially. Clearly not INTPs strong points.

On the other hand you could have a position where people will obey you depending on the quality of decisions you make, like a group of professionals, high military positions, ect. I would choose an INTP over any other type for such a job. INTPs tend to be logical, rational and sure of their own opinions without being dictatorial, open-minded, fair, and most capable of understanding complex situations. And not prone to starting political purges, like say, INTJs.

So for a gang leader, and ESTJ, and for the dictator of the world, if such a position existed, an INTP.

A person who doesn't want power and control should be a fair-enough leader. Is that it? I wonder how, Jefferson's and Lincoln's(proposed INTP's or at least close) mind worked.

 

[BigApplePi]

Try this: An INTP will excel at leadership where some pre-set goal is already set up in some larger structure for the group. Then lead people toward that goal by democratically asking for ideas, pointing out the value of such ideas and finally asking for group agreement.

As an example of this I used to be a "crew leader" for the census bureau where the project was already set up -- to take the census. I had a rotating crew of 9-15 people working under me. It required the fair handling of and knowing all these people. I had to manage, hire and fire. I loved the job, was a success, and had a great time. Too bad it ended, lol.

Although I was a special kind of leader, actually I was following the leadership of an organizational structure which I had no objection to. So this fits in with an INTP being fond of supporting other leaders.

 

[Vatroslav]

I think that INTPs can be good leaders if they have any rational reason to be so. And they surely make great councilors. Because of their ability to see the variety of possibilities.

 

[Words]

What reasons could INTP's have that would motivate them enough to partake in leadership: their general distaste?

 

[Vatroslav]

To speak for myself, I do have a distaste... I don't know what is the general state...

 

[Words]

What if its the general state, what possible reasons emerge?

 

[BigApplePi]

What reasons could INTP's have that would motivate them enough to partake in leadership: their general distaste?

For the experience. To add to their repertoire of knowledge. That was probably my motivation.

 

[EditorOne]

1. The motivation to lead is to see to it that things are done the best way they can be; to make it come out right when you know how that should be.
2. Talk of motivating others is management cant. All motivation comes from within. Therefore a tool for success for an INTP leader is to be able to do the hiring, and screen for people who are fulfilled by whatever the job is about. Grasp the concept: Some people know exactly what they want from life and seek occupations that provide it. Accountants really do like numbers; retailers really do like selling stuff; salesmen really do enjoy closing a deal. Match the person to the job and you don't need to motivate, you just need to do what we do best: Get out of the way and make sure those folks have what they need in the way of resources. You can be most useful making sure people are doing the right things, more visionary, than in making sure they're doing things right, which is supervision, not leadership. Set the course/identify the target/etc.
3. INTP leaders will be blind to certain very important things dealing with emotions and need, at the very least, a strong, trustworthy F as a top subordinate or partner. Creating enemies as a weird loner is one thing; when you're supposed to be in charge it creates endless drama when you fail to "appreciate" the emotional atmosphere you're busy slicing your way through with crisp analysis and blunt descriptions. God forbid you offend anyone.
4. Eventually you learn you can't trust anyone except other INTPs because they're the only ones you can "read." I've got the knife wounds in my back if anyone wants to see them.
5. Being adjutant is better than being the colonel, as several have noted. You are assumed to be speaking for him at all times, but he will be the target of the little jealous intrigues and bureaucratic conspiracies. A much better arrangement, since he will also be much more attuned to that kind of thing. Being an INTP sometimes means you don't know what's really going on until emotional fruit has ripened and smacked you on the head at 200 miles per hour. Sort of like Newton's apple providing an epiphany....

 

[Quiet&Nerdy]

i disagree with 4, both of my closest friends are most certainly not intp's and i trust them more then anyone else

and as an intp i prefer being an adviser of sorts where its easier to step back and assess

but then again what do i know

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

There are two kinds of leaders. Leaders that command and leaders that urge. Both have their advantages, but I think INTPs are instinctively in the latter category.
...

All types have a lot of work to do in order to become good leaders, but some are much more likely to have done that work (having a greater interest in being in charge). Don't let that discourage you from developing those skills yourself, because its not outside our capacity, or even something we're specifically disadvantaged towards.

I have a great desire to lead, and I do so regularly. I am often upset when I some extrovert takes over just because they talk too much. lol I do agree with the first part though... I do tend to urge instead of command. Therefore I prefer to co-lead when I am with teenagers and the like. But in groups of adults or younger children, I feel I am able to work well in my position, granted I am in a position where I can use my natural skills of providing information and asking questions.

As a leader, I feel I am more of the type where people would respect my knowledge and my ability to see and accept people as they are, then move them forward. Kind of like the all-knowing martial arts instructors from the movies where some kid wants to master it and this guy gets them serious about what they're doing and pushes them to learn and succeed. We do this through logic. "If you want this, this is what you do." But if they're not serious, the instructor won't take them seriously either. This is my position.

 

[Enne]

Sage on the stage or guide on the side? : /

 

[EditorOne]

Sage on the stage or guide on the side? : /

Beautifully put.

I'll revise Number Four on my list in deference to Q&N's input: Eventually I learned I'm better off not trusting anyone except other INTPs because I can't read them and have gotten badly burned/hurt etc. as a result. And I'm a slow learner. As noted, your mileage may vary. And you can't go through life wary as a bobcat, although even as I say that it seems a very attractive image.

 

[BigApplePi]

My leadership. I mentioned yesterday 02-09-10 12:13p EST where I was a successful leader. I must not have learned much because this happened later.

I had joined a discussion group in NYC believing that was a good thing. I was too much alone. This group had a rotating leadership called the "captainsy"-- good for 3 months at a time. After I met the minimum time requirement I qualified for captainsy and got elected. I was nervous, didn't know about personality types but that was okay. This was experience. There were no INTP, mostly J's. I got by and got to be captain a few times. Nothing spectacular as this group had strict rules and there was no deviating. Then one day a friend of mine (An ESFP) violated a rule while captain. (He talked outside on an answering machine about something inside.) This was a no-no. A vote was taken and he was kicked out over my inadequate protests. At that time I didn't know how to stand up for myself, not that I am that able now. I believed in open discussion, forgiveness, etc. But this group was too powerful.

When it was my turn to be captain, all the spirit was out of me. I suppressed my feelings on the prior issue thinking further protest was futile. I went through the motions and gave what I thought was a lackluster terrible job. Later the group fell apart. I blame myself for lack of assertiveness. Typical of an INTP don't you think?

 

[Words]

Yes. Typical.

Assertiveness within J's seems like a place/situation where you would have to be drill sergeant.

Is force really necessary when leading?

 

[Decaf]

Typical of an INTP don't you think?

This is THE quality of INTPs that makes me the proudest. Yes, we're often clever, smart, witty, etc... but morally determined trumps them all. What is the point of creating something if it violates your principles. Sure our principles aren't all the same, but they're vital and they are immutable. Your lackluster performance as a leader was your way of leaving the group in protest over the unfair treatment of your friend.

We do it all the time really. While we flail ourselves for not taking a stand, we activate our most unforgiving defense mechanism at a moment's notice when things go too far. We disengage. INTPs are completely unwilling to engage with anything that violates their principles. We can't even force ourselves to most of the time. Its unfortunate that we use this mechanism inappropriately sometimes, but I wouldn't trade it for anything.

We are not dramatic people. We don't storm off in a huff because those kinds of actions seem manipulative to us. We might disappear or apologize and leave, but rarely if ever stoop to storming off. Your actions may not have benefited the group, but you should be proud of the fact that your subconscious showed itself to be sturdier than the pressure of the group, not matter how determined.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

When it was my turn to be captain, all the spirit was out of me. I suppressed my feelings on the prior issue thinking further protest was futile. I went through the motions and gave what I thought was a lackluster terrible job. Later the group fell apart. I blame myself for lack of assertiveness. Typical of an INTP don't you think?

Haha, you were expressing your inner slime mold!

Let me elaborate... everyone wants to be the Jaguar in the rainforest. The Jaguar is the top of the food chain, eats everything else, is the most powerful. I want to be the Jaguar!

Nobody wants to be the slime mold in the rainforest. The thing that destroys other things, that makes failures of our projects. But the slime mold, while destructive, allows us to recycle ourselves. By destroying something you make room for something new.

Your poor captaincy, which could almost be construed as sabotage, was a way of applying your inner slime mold to that group.

How this applies to leadership.... not sure

 

[BigApplePi]

This is THE quality of INTPs that makes me the proudest. Yes, we're often clever, smart, witty, etc... but morally determined trumps them all. What is the point of creating something if it violates your principles. Sure our principles aren't all the same, but they're vital and they are immutable. Your lackluster performance as a leader was your way of leaving the group in protest over the unfair treatment of your friend.

We do it all the time really. While we flail ourselves for not taking a stand, we activate our most unforgiving defense mechanism at a moment's notice when things go too far. We disengage. INTPs are completely unwilling to engage with anything that violates their principles. We can't even force ourselves to most of the time. Its unfortunate that we use this mechanism inappropriately sometimes, but I wouldn't trade it for anything.

We are not dramatic people. We don't storm off in a huff because those kinds of actions seem manipulative to us. We might disappear or apologize and leave, but rarely if ever stoop to storming off. Your actions may not have benefited the group, but you should be proud of the fact that your subconscious showed itself to be sturdier than the pressure of the group, not matter how determined.

Feedback appreciated Decaf. My current interpretation is I had an intuition kicking out my friend was wrong but I couldn't just say, "You kicked out my friend." My thinking was undeveloped. I had to look at the REASON WHY they kicked him out. The "J's" had their own principle which was not to talk outside the group what was inside. I wasn't ready to counter that even though I didn't believe in it. Was I to honor their strict letter of their law? The violation wasn't so bad. It was on the line. I think their rule was a bad one in the first place and indicated a weakness of those J's. I wasn't ready to address those weaknesses.

I've been a member of other discussion groups where people act naturally. If something personal is said, people don't broadcast it. They respect it. If something is mentioned outside, it is treated for what it is -- a special case. A special case may or may not be wrong. It's not a rule written in stone.

Another thing I observe is I lacked the courage to give the group an ultimatum. I failed to say, "Either you keep my friend in or I leave with him." By behaving in the dispirited manner that I did, I contributed nothing. I guess INTPs must fulfill their prime thinking "T" function as my "N" function didn't help and my "F" function was worse.

 

[BigApplePi]

Haha, you were expressing your inner slime mold!

Let me elaborate... everyone wants to be the Jaguar in the rainforest. The Jaguar is the top of the food chain, eats everything else, is the most powerful. I want to be the Jaguar!

Nobody wants to be the slime mold in the rainforest. The thing that destroys other things, that makes failures of our projects. But the slime mold, while destructive, allows us to recycle ourselves. By destroying something you make room for something new.

Your poor captaincy, which could almost be construed as sabotage, was a way of applying your inner slime mold to that group.

How this applies to leadership.... not sure

Reverse Transcriptase appreciated. Ya know as an aside, when someone starts a new thread around here they are exercising leadership.

 

[Trebuchet]

What if its the general state, what possible reasons emerge?

Necessity is a big one. I've stepped into leadership roles when no one else would, and did just fine. I did that in college when my team was preparing for a presentation, and I was the only one that had experience in public speaking. I did it when the company I worked for had a mandatory audit, and everyone else got so depressed about it they were being ineffective. I did it when I wanted to save a teacher's job in junior high. There were budget cuts and he didn't have a lot of seniority, but he was easily the most talented and dedicated teacher there, so I organized the students and we were very successful.

I also signed up for CERT training (Community Emergency Response Team), which I am ashamed to say is now out of date, but in the event of an emergency, I wanted to be prepared to lead if necessary. Even an hour with someone acting calm and in control might make a difference during a crisis.

So, when we need to, or when we are the best ones qualified, INTPs make effective leaders. Maybe we aren't the one's giving the Saint Crispen's Day speech from Henry V, but we certainly can get things done, gain people's trust and respect, organize what needs doing, supervise as needed, and stay calm in a crisis.

 

[pjoa09]

Maybe we could become into leaders when there is no one there to lead? I tend to lend off suggestions and sometimes the group puts me into the spot to make the suggestion into a decision.

 

[walfin]

Leadership does not have to be command leadership. Thought leadership is also a kind of leadership.

The problem is not whether we are naturally good "leaders" or not, but what kind of leadership suits us better and how we can use it to develop influence (for good).

I think for some people leadership is an end in itself. For an INTP it's more likely to be a means to an end.

 

[BigApplePi]

Leadership does not have to be command leadership. Thought leadership is also a kind of leadership.

I think for some people leadership is an end in itself. For an INTP it's more likely to be a means to an end.

I would summarize it from the P quality. Perception observes. It brings out the entire area. It's "flat." J's choose. No neutrality. Leadership must choose a direction. So an INTP would have to have something causing choice. For me it's often (always?) external events or other people.

I choose to be here. How did I make that choice? Answer: because I'm excited to be with people who understand and whom I'm like. It's such a new thing from all those ESFJs or xxxJ's. It's not leadership but it is CHOICE. And that choice was determined not by thinking but by feeling. I'm a little out of my area here. Adymus input would help I think.

 

[EditorOne]

Perfectly said, BigApple. You've nailed something important.


"Maybe we aren't the one's giving the Saint Crispen's Day speech from Henry V,"

We would, however, probably be among the small group who memorized it because its twist on valor appealed to us because we often find ourselves, naturally, in a beleagured minority surrounded by enemies.

 

[Zero]

I agree with Anthile's first post, as that has been my experience.

At most I can be a "partner", but I'm a terrible leader and prefer to be an influence or second in command. As a leader I'm too anal and I dislike leading. I eventually become too frustrated with it, with the people and I like having my space. Sometimes people act afraid of me.

The only way I could be a leader is if it were in a comical villain way with followers of absolute obedience.

If I feel the leader is incompetent I tend to stray or I try to make up for it if I see any promise in the other people or have a responsibility to them.

I only know of one ENTJ I definitely knew. He took the free online test many times and it came up with ENTJ all the time. It described him perfectly. He could just absorb everything into his own little pattern and then make plans off of it. He was open to suggestion and excited about people, whether or not he actually accepted what we said he appeared to listen. He was odd for sure, and I've never had that experience with other people.

My mother being an ESTP, as far as I can guess, is sort of ruthless in her own way. It seems like she's prone to make some mistakes that are... largely problematic due to this SP. At times she comes off as a perfectionist as well or at least expects if from everyone. Her antics don't really encourage a following. She's the "get it done" sort and seems pre-occupied from everything else. However, if I even mention something in passing, that is possible to do, I might have to fear she'll do it. In her case she needs a lot of assistance and I play the part of personal assistant to her sometimes. There are many good aspects to ESTPs as I've seen in my mother. They won't take crap from anyone, they won't let people get away with doing a bad job or wrong to people they care about. They get the job done and it's done RIGHT.

STPs like to do fun activities and seem to have no fears at times. STPs don't strike me as the best leaders, but because of their get it done attitude they can be leader. If need be I think ISTPs would make better leaders. ISTPs seem more the type to say "deal with it" rather than "This isn't right, correct it". That is, in the experience I've had with my family.

The only NFJ leader I've known was a teacher of mine. From that experience NFJs seem less goal oriented and more concerned about group antics and spirit. That's not to say they aren't goal oriented at all, as it seemed to me my teacher was very timely. It seems like bonding comes before the task.

There are other people in my life I have vaguely typed, but I don't think I could say for sure how they act as leaders.

As for myself, as I mentioned...

I don't have the desire to lead, Not easy dealing with people, There are good leaders who will listen. Perhaps I have too much of a random mind anyhow.

 

[citrusbreath95]

To OP: I think it's really amazing how an INTJ is at the top of the list of being a leader, and INTP at the bottom, that the last category makes such a major impact... this information answers so many questions! Anyways, about INTPs being leaders, I'm usually not too good at this, I think if I were to try to lead I would end up being the person (because of how random, and how I sometimes can get caught up so much in my thoughts that they seem likely to me, but in no way match reality) that if I were in a movie and I was to lead, I would be the one who would get everyone dead.. ha ha. Yet, if I were alone in a movie, I would probably live. So I do better on my own, but if I am in a group activity or something then I prefer having someone else take the lead, unless they have no earthly idea as to what they are doing or are leading the group the wrong way..., then I might step in. INTPs may not be natural leaders, but it surely doesn't mean we aren't capable of it. I think we just prefer not to lead, but if we really wanted to I am sure we could learn and do a decent job. Maybe not as good as INTJs or ENTJs but enough not to get everyone killed in the movie!...just slightly injured...

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm guessing not very.

The dominant and auxiliary functions (Ti and Ne) don't really seem "leader-like". By that I mean they don't have that "vision" nor that "drive" needed to "move" others. And the only ones that are more of this sort that INTP's have are the tertiary and inferior functions (Si, Fe); which are also "low-quality material" compared to Ni and Te. Furthermore, these are the tertiary and inferior functions! Therefore, a double in weakness.

So, by this line of thinking, INTP's are one of the least capable leaders.

The ranking being:

1. ENTJ & INTJ (Te Ni * *)
2. ENFJ & INFJ (Fe Ni * *)
3. ESTJ & ISTJ (Te Si * *)
4. ESFJ & ISFJ (Fe Si * *)
5. ESFP & ISFP ( * * Te Ni)
6. ESTP & ISTP (* * Fe Ni)
7. ENFP & INFP (* * Te Si)
8. ENTP & INTP (* * Fe Si)

I'm probably wrong here but I'm simply displaying it so someone could consider to try and enlighten me.

Here's the way I think of it.

An INTP would be the best leader where an exploration of possibilities is to be done. They would guide democratically not allowing the J's to shut out other people.

The INTJ would be the best leaders where action is required. They would get people of diverse opinions to choose. They would put a stop to the inaction of P's mulling over the possibilities.

I don't know about those other types because I don't know them. What about them?

 

[Dormouse]

From what I know, INTPs can be great leaders on a small scale as they'll value individual output, tending to see eye-to-eye with group members. They're also flexible and able to adapt the project to the strengths of the group... Though they may be willing to take less risks.

I don't know how INTPs would fare directing large crowds, I don't think they'd be a strong authority figure.

Basically, 'camp counsellor that everyone loves' as opposed to 'dictator/coach that pushes his team to the top'.

Not sure if this is accurate or just my own experience speaking...

 

[Cavallier]

INTPs in my opinion can make excellent leaders, even in the top of the hierarchy. What INTP lack is not as much the ability to make good decisions, but the unwillingness, inability and general distaste towards controlling people.

It really depends on what we think of as leadership. If it's the ability to take a group of potentially reclusive people and turn them into a team working for a common goal, you could call it 'social mobilization,' then you would need someone with willingness to take charge, ability to maintain authority and manipulate the group socially. Clearly not INTPs strong points.

On the other hand you could have a position where people will obey you depending on the quality of decisions you make, like a group of professionals, high military positions, ect. I would choose an INTP over any other type for such a job. INTPs tend to be logical, rational and sure of their own opinions without being dictatorial, open-minded, fair, and most capable of understanding complex situations. And not prone to starting political purges, like say, INTJs.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

When I first started leading my group at work I had issues with having to micromanage them. They would be lazy and slack off if I didn't follow them around all day. Finally one guy told me flat out he just didn't feel like doing something I had assigned him. That was the last straw. I pulled everybody together and literally shouted at them, "I'm not your mother! If you aren't professional enough to do your jobs without me hovering around you like a hen then get the hell out now! *imagine a long pause here* It doesn't have to be this way you know...". Worked like a charm actually. My team became productive again and we got everything done. Later they came to respect me for the fact that I didn't play the office politics and I didn't give them stupid pointless shit to do like the other leadership members did.

Having said that, I prefer to leave the inspirational crap to somebody else. I'd much rather be the go to info person. I hate leading. I hate the fact that I can't simply assume my team will do what they need to do. Instead I have to follow up when I and the team could be getting important things done. That's why the only time I will be a leader is if the team is made up of professional workers who take an honest interest in what they are doing. --->"On the other hand you could have a position where people will obey you depending on the quality of decisions you make, like a group of professionals, high military positions, ect." This.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yes. Yes. Yes.

When I first started leading my group at work I had issues with having to micromanage them. They would be lazy and slack off if I didn't follow them around all day. Finally one guy told me flat out he just didn't feel like doing something I had assigned him. That was the last straw. I pulled everybody together and literally shouted at them, "I'm not your mother! If you aren't professional enough to do your jobs without me hovering around you like a hen then get the hell out now!

Did you see this as taking a big chance? What does "get the hell out now!" mean? Was there a risk they would quit and YOU would be blamed? Was there a risk they would continue to slack off? I must be missing something.

 

[Cavallier]

Did you see this as taking a big chance? What does "get the hell out now!" mean? Was there a risk they would quit and YOU would be blamed? Was there a risk they would continue to slack off? I must be missing something.

Oh, sorry for the confusion. I and they knew that I meant get out of my group and join another. I also meant they should stop slacking or quit their job which they also understood. No one wanted to quit and no one really wanted to leave my team. They just needed to understand that I wouldn't take their slacking any more and that if they continued I'd boot them off my team and put them on a team with a leader that was more irritating than myself. They loved being on my team but they thought they could take advantage of me. It was a risk because one of them could have decided to quit which I would have had to answer for or I could have been forced to make a formal complaint about one of them and have to get them fired. But they shaped up and we became a lot more productive. I was still the "coolest" team leader.

This is an example of being considered the "funnest most awesomest" leader but not being respected. I had to learn as a leader that while I can still be all the good things I need to kick people a bit to get their respect sometimes.

 

[boradicus]

Yes

 

[Me So Charlie]

I have white hairs and nightmares.
Six years ago I was hired as a seasonal employee to work on the receiving dock of a distribution center (no prior experience). I worked hard for 4 years and was eventually chosen to participate in a year long management training program. However, upper management shared their concerns that my prior military experience made me seem too rigid and although I had a solid grasp on the operation, my people skills were severely lacking.

My first assignment was working with the part-time, a group of people (250-300 folks) hungry for the chance to get full time employment and they volunteered, begged for every cross-training opportunity. I loved guiding them.
BUT, in my position, I wasn't afforded the chance to make operational decisions. I ached for the stress and pace of getting our product in the warehouse and customer orders out the door. I should have been careful for what I wished for.
Now I work in the largest department in the warehouse. I have 22 full time direct reports but I manage anywhere from 40-100 associates on a nightly basis. My full timers are unmotivated, unhappy, and altogether miserable (with some exceptions) who only come to work for the paycheck and benefits. I am the 6th supervisor they've had in 4 years. I struggle to build morale and one-on-one relationships but I figure nothing I say or do is going to change their demeanor and I secretly hope that they will all die ...um, I mean quit.
This past week we've implemented a program called the InQbator, that isolates our poor performers for a month so that they can receive direction and coaching to improve performance. It took me 2 hours to meet with all the associates affected (in groups of 4-6 people at a time). I felt it was necessary so that this program would be seen as a benefit, a positive instead of punitive. All of that interaction literally drained me for 2 days.
I have come to the conclusion that upper management was correct.
I am not a motivator or cheerleader.
It is ironic that our General Manager is also a female INTP. I don't know how she does it.

BTW, the InQbator program was my idea. Don't tell my associates.

 

[Razare]

Most of the INTJ's that I've ever heard of or met are terrible leaders. Their leadership style only fits in with organized military. They can be exceptionally effective under the right conditions, but in most organizations, emotions and politics play into how decisions are crafted. Most INTJ's would ignore all of that and press-on, earning themselves enemies. They are the best decision makers, but in many cases that makes you the worst leader because of the human factor.

INTP's as leaders can work as many people have described here. I think INTP leadership works best when we lead through knowledge. If a group looks to you in order to understand and analyze, then you sort of become the leader without barking out orders.

My leadership experience has been terrible, but also, I am not a classical INTP. As soon as I am put in a leadership role, I behave like an INTJ. This gets me into trouble because I really just care about accomplishing the task, not listening to other group members. Then the members of the group turn against me because I don't listen to them. This turns me into an INTP and I just let them do whatever because I stopped caring. Usually, a different leader takes the seat then. I never volunteer to be the leader because I know how horrid I am at it, but since I usually understand what's going on so well I end up the leader in the beginning because everyone else is clueless.

So yah, after posting this I think I see what I should do in groups from now on. Play dumb.