The problem with presenting in a quadrant like this is that many people tends to categorize others into categories and tries to apply a one-size-fits-all strategy to deal with people that they arbitrarily categorize as "results focused" or "harmony focused" etc. The truth is people exhibit different engagement styles in different context and areas. Hence, one needs to be cautious of over generalization from one aspect to another.
True, it can be helpful for conceptualization and quick thinking, but an inherent property of models is that they simplify and generalize. That is both their asset and liability.
That’s why I dislike a lot of these physiological videos. They try to pin people in categories when in reality people are all over the place depending on situation and mood
the speaker noted that we all have characteristics from all 4 quadrants but we tend to be more one over the others. this is a tool, it will work has limitations just like all tools
I'm a combo of amiable and analytical. I've never been fast paced, and I always make sure things get done right and well. It's certainly a challenge working in a team sometimes and I feel more confident when I work independently. I'm also the type of person that tries to keep the peace around me as well.
Back in the 1980s there were popular books saying all this. Four personality types. Then each of them can be broken down into another four. We had INTJs and ENFJs, etc. What bugs me is the new "modern" philosophers are saying the '80s had it wrong and we're only now enlightened. But the only thing that's changed is the labels. Driver. Expressive. Analytical. Amiable. Best book ever was "Please Understand Me." Short, simple, great examples. Fun to read. What we need to make the world a better place is to keep using the same baseline of terminology that the next generations can build upon. Make it possible for the 20-year-olds to talk about this with the "elderly" (who just might still be in charge of your world.)
Great Piece! I love the analysis. Permit me say a few words, With the complex human psychology, we hardly find a person with just one color, rather with a combination of two or three colors; for instance, Many drivers could be focused because of their position as the CEO or boss together with their tight schedule. In a nutshell, the position an individual occupies in a company alters his behaviour and makes it difficult for one to predict with precision that he or she has such a characteristic.
That is all very interesting. I'm not a psychologist or statistician, but... When I think more about your four quadrants I think perhaps we all have some of each trait in us and most people fall somewhere in the middle. If you took statistics (and were paying attention) you might remember the terms "bell curve" and "normal distribution." Most things in nature (and personality traits) are normally distributed. It is a natural phenomenon that things arrange themselves that way. Most people fall near the middle (68% within one standard deviation) and very few 2 or 3 SDs from the center. So when you talk about personal traits like being outgoing or reserved, for example, my guess is that most of us are not at the extreme, and in fact, most of us are near the middle of those extremes.
I'm more analytical, secondly amiable, thirdly a little bit expressive (when I'm with people I know for some time). I'm zero driver. I don't do to others what I don't wish for myself.
You have a great delivery style, and very clearly explain the more 'pure' types of workers. Have you considered offering a video for people who can't decide between the given categories? For example, I consider myself fairly analytical, however I am more a 'Feeler' type person on the whole. Would you agree that the best leader or manager is a combination of all 4 'types'?
In my opinion, leadership is about adapting to all the context a situation provides. This includes the team you've got, the people in it, the infrastructure and culture of the company, the company's goals and needs, and so on. The more context you can analyze succesfully to produce insights that lead to better decisions, the better you do in your leadership role. For example, while going through Uni, I am working at a local fastfood place as the production leader. This means my role is fundamentally quite heavily oriented on "hard-boiled results"; faster, more accurate, more productive, fresher, more quality. So most of my role requires me to drive my subordinates to key results in whichever way I deem most appropriate. When there's a low external pressure from orders or a faster-working counter (which would make the kitchen the bottleneck in production), I invest in my employees by training them on new work stations or by giving them key responsibilities in the operations of the kitchen, in which they are allowed to delegate and organize tasks as they see fit, while I oversee their work and operate in a controlling fashion (if things seem to go really south, I'll explain my broad-strokes vision of what the desired outcome is, rather than just letting the whole thing get out of hand). When there's a high external pressure, everyone's set at their best stations, with the exception of trainees that are ready for their first rush performances at their newly trained stations. I set up contingency plans with them which is just a fancy way of saying, "if shit hits the fan, which you can tell if this or that happens, let me know and we'll swap positions". I will make sure I minimize the chances of this happening in the first place, of course. Before the rush, I will use an authoritarian stance: these are the key targets, and I want you to prioritize this over that when it comes to it. When you can no longer maintain the targets for your station, or you see it's about to happen, call me for help. I've most likely seen by then what's going on, but I want my employees to manage their own results, rather than just defaulting to toppling over and expecting me to catch them without fail. During the rush, it's pure and simple command and control. This is appropriate because there's no time for anything else. Loud, clear voices from those who must communicate, according to preset protocols, while minimizing noise. Afterwards, we go towards a coaching approach. They knew my vision, we went through command & control during the "crisis"-like level of urgency that is rush hour, and now we have time to evaluate, diagnose what caused issues, and formulate a plan for next time. This too often starts with "we did this wrong, next time do that" with low-level managers. Instead, the better question is: "How did you guys think it went? What went well, and what could've gone better? How should we change our approach next time?" You weigh in and explain what you think about the responses and guide the conversation towards your own vision. Example: If someone says, "I think it went great, not much else to say", then you can steer them towards a critical insight by mentioning an indicator of what went wrong, such as "did everyone have roughly the same amount of work to do?" (work load distribution ==> positions planning & right people in the right place) or "how does the kitchen look to you?" (cleanliness & orderliness ==> clean stations before leaving them; use spare time to re-organize and re-stock). I don't particularly like affiliative and democratic styles. I want to get everyone's input through the lense of my own vision and targets. People get to express more and more of their own vision as they progress and achieve better results. I think a coaching approach works best when evaluating own results and own performance, not the general operational procedures or general approach of the department. I'd rather give a few options and state I'm going to make a decision listening to the input provided, rather than throwing the decision towards the public and going with whatever achieves consensus. That only works, in my view, in very particular cases where people will never productively follow a non-consensual approach. The types work similar to these leadership styles. Command & control is a very "Driver"-type behavior or leadership style. Coaching and setting a vision are more towards the expressive side, pitching ideas and creating a demand for a particular way of doing things. Democracy is a very harmonic, affiliative approach, one I consider not very often palatable because other styles of leadership can achieve the same without throwing away your right to a final decision on your own terms. That's my two cents, at least! Hope you found this somewhat insightful if you read this far!
Thanks a lot. Good useful information. To the point. No useless chit-chat. Now I have to see to best fit these people I work with into these categories. ;-)
Thanku for an amazing video. I am yellow- expressive type. I have a question, how to know which category/type the other person falls in if we are new to business..
Great Video, I am High C and High S. I am a business owner, what disc style should my; Project Manager be? High D and High C? Acquisitions Specialist be? High D and High I? Office Manager be? High S and High C?
Balance your humor, change your life How food affects your well being. Every person has a unique humor makeup representing his healthy state. . When this makeup is understood and the proper foods are consumed, it will help the body to regain power and it will bring it to an optimum level and restore humoral balance. Avicenna (980-1037 AD) believed that certain human moods, emotions and behaviors were caused by an excess or lack of bodily fluids called humors. Types of humors are: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. Every human has a different composition of these four types of humors. This is important because all aspects of our lives are influenced by the makeup of our bodies. The type of food we eat can have a significant impact on all of our organs and nerves from the brain to the heart, stomach, liver, kidneys and colon. Eating a poor diet can have enormous consequences. In the simplest cases, one can observe, for example, the consumption of a date that immediately produces acne. This is the body’s response to the food consumed. Also, a proper diet and good digestion are considered to maintain humoral balance. This book explores how your optimal diet will achieve the humoral balance needed for the healthiest you. More information in this book 👇👇 www.amazon.com/Balance-your-Humor-change-life/dp/1978149212 Also help : WHY SHOULD I KNOW MY TEMPERAMENT? HOW IS TEMPERAMENT DIFFERENT FROM PERSONALITY? DOES TEMPERAMENT DEFINE YOU? Understand yourself and others, know yourself, love other’s. REJUVENATION: EXTROVERT OR INTROVERT. Understand why people behave in different ways. Which Career Path You Should Take Based on Your Personality Type and more fallow: instagram.com/balance_your_humor?igshid=1a8srw1yl8fsx
Very good information, I would however like to see another video on how to deal with people that are predominately more than one color. I for example am part of the very small percentage of personalities that am perfectly rounded in every quadrant and am not predominate in any one particular area. Again thank you for the information as this does apply to probably 85% of the population, I'm just curious to learn about the few "exceptions to the rule" as well. :)
Hi Viviana! Take a look at this article to learn more about stakeholders: www.projectmanager.com/blog/stakeholder-analysis-101#:~:text=A%20stakeholder%20is%20anyone%20that,as%20executives%20and%20team%20members.
Good, simple and yet very useful ideas. May I ask what is the source or parallels of this wisdom? It sounds a bit like Task Orientation vs Relationship Orientation from the theories of Fons Trompenaars.
Not sure I can answer your question, but if you look up Susanne Madsen you'll find her website where you might find what you're looking for. Good luck.
tried it....I failed miserably....because everyone wants me to chang their behavior towards them...why doesn't anyone want to change their behavior for me? LOL
There you go ... 1. I as Driver: I NEED, I WANT AAAAAAA, 2. I TO an Expressive: How is your weekend, by the way please can you ... 3. I TO an Amiable: You look pretty today. :-) hey Is it possible to ... 4. I To analytical .. Here is the problem, by when can you provide me details ..
My wife has a new executive position at a non profit, and its appalling how much time and money they spend learning these things. I especially enjoy watching her try to manipulate our home with her new techniques. Sigh...
The problem with presenting in a quadrant like this is that many people tends to categorize others into categories and tries to apply a one-size-fits-all strategy to deal with people that they arbitrarily categorize as "results focused" or "harmony focused" etc. The truth is people exhibit different engagement styles in different context and areas. Hence, one needs to be cautious of over generalization from one aspect to another.
True, it can be helpful for conceptualization and quick thinking, but an inherent property of models is that they simplify and generalize. That is both their asset and liability.
Not a blue by any chance are you? :-D
That’s why I dislike a lot of these physiological videos. They try to pin people in categories when in reality people are all over the place depending on situation and mood
the speaker noted that we all have characteristics from all 4 quadrants but we tend to be more one over the others.
this is a tool, it will work has limitations just like all tools
I'm a combo of amiable and analytical. I've never been fast paced, and I always make sure things get done right and well. It's certainly a challenge working in a team sometimes and I feel more confident when I work independently. I'm also the type of person that tries to keep the peace around me as well.
4 and half minutes of very useful information. Thank you.
Happy to do it!
This is similar to DISC - Dominance, Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientiousness
You are lovely teacher, concise, precise.
Thanks! Great video. Would be great to see another like this expanding on each type and tips on how to read each type of person.
Good one Susanne and team. Thanks for this video.
Back in the 1980s there were popular books saying all this. Four personality types. Then each of them can be broken down into another four. We had INTJs and ENFJs, etc. What bugs me is the new "modern" philosophers are saying the '80s had it wrong and we're only now enlightened. But the only thing that's changed is the labels. Driver. Expressive. Analytical. Amiable. Best book ever was "Please Understand Me." Short, simple, great examples. Fun to read. What we need to make the world a better place is to keep using the same baseline of terminology that the next generations can build upon. Make it possible for the 20-year-olds to talk about this with the "elderly" (who just might still be in charge of your world.)
Great Piece! I love the analysis. Permit me say a few words, With the complex human psychology, we hardly find a person with just one color, rather with a combination of two or three colors; for instance, Many drivers could be focused because of their position as the CEO or boss together with their tight schedule. In a nutshell, the position an individual occupies in a company alters his behaviour and makes it difficult for one to predict with precision that he or she has such a characteristic.
Correct! Most people are a mix of types.
Just what I was looking for. Very nicely put. Thank you
That is all very interesting. I'm not a psychologist or statistician, but... When I think more about your four quadrants I think perhaps we all have some of each trait in us and most people fall somewhere in the middle. If you took statistics (and were paying attention) you might remember the terms "bell curve" and "normal distribution." Most things in nature (and personality traits) are normally distributed. It is a natural phenomenon that things arrange themselves that way. Most people fall near the middle (68% within one standard deviation) and very few 2 or 3 SDs from the center. So when you talk about personal traits like being outgoing or reserved, for example, my guess is that most of us are not at the extreme, and in fact, most of us are near the middle of those extremes.
I'm more analytical, secondly amiable, thirdly a little bit expressive (when I'm with people I know for some time). I'm zero driver. I don't do to others what I don't wish for myself.
Well said in such a short time. Also very clear information to understand.
Wonderful piece of information. Appreciate this !
Thanks for watching!
REALLY INSIGHTFUL NEVER THOUGHT LIKE THIS WAY AROUND!! THANKS MADAM!!
Thanks!
You fractured me with facts, thanks for sharing your knowledge. I'm looking forward to more
Respect... informative
You have a great delivery style, and very clearly explain the more 'pure' types of workers. Have you considered offering a video for people who can't decide between the given categories? For example, I consider myself fairly analytical, however I am more a 'Feeler' type person on the whole. Would you agree that the best leader or manager is a combination of all 4 'types'?
In my opinion, leadership is about adapting to all the context a situation provides. This includes the team you've got, the people in it, the infrastructure and culture of the company, the company's goals and needs, and so on. The more context you can analyze succesfully to produce insights that lead to better decisions, the better you do in your leadership role.
For example, while going through Uni, I am working at a local fastfood place as the production leader. This means my role is fundamentally quite heavily oriented on "hard-boiled results"; faster, more accurate, more productive, fresher, more quality. So most of my role requires me to drive my subordinates to key results in whichever way I deem most appropriate.
When there's a low external pressure from orders or a faster-working counter (which would make the kitchen the bottleneck in production), I invest in my employees by training them on new work stations or by giving them key responsibilities in the operations of the kitchen, in which they are allowed to delegate and organize tasks as they see fit, while I oversee their work and operate in a controlling fashion (if things seem to go really south, I'll explain my broad-strokes vision of what the desired outcome is, rather than just letting the whole thing get out of hand).
When there's a high external pressure, everyone's set at their best stations, with the exception of trainees that are ready for their first rush performances at their newly trained stations. I set up contingency plans with them which is just a fancy way of saying, "if shit hits the fan, which you can tell if this or that happens, let me know and we'll swap positions". I will make sure I minimize the chances of this happening in the first place, of course.
Before the rush, I will use an authoritarian stance: these are the key targets, and I want you to prioritize this over that when it comes to it. When you can no longer maintain the targets for your station, or you see it's about to happen, call me for help. I've most likely seen by then what's going on, but I want my employees to manage their own results, rather than just defaulting to toppling over and expecting me to catch them without fail.
During the rush, it's pure and simple command and control. This is appropriate because there's no time for anything else. Loud, clear voices from those who must communicate, according to preset protocols, while minimizing noise.
Afterwards, we go towards a coaching approach. They knew my vision, we went through command & control during the "crisis"-like level of urgency that is rush hour, and now we have time to evaluate, diagnose what caused issues, and formulate a plan for next time. This too often starts with "we did this wrong, next time do that" with low-level managers. Instead, the better question is: "How did you guys think it went? What went well, and what could've gone better? How should we change our approach next time?" You weigh in and explain what you think about the responses and guide the conversation towards your own vision.
Example: If someone says, "I think it went great, not much else to say", then you can steer them towards a critical insight by mentioning an indicator of what went wrong, such as "did everyone have roughly the same amount of work to do?" (work load distribution ==> positions planning & right people in the right place) or "how does the kitchen look to you?" (cleanliness & orderliness ==> clean stations before leaving them; use spare time to re-organize and re-stock).
I don't particularly like affiliative and democratic styles. I want to get everyone's input through the lense of my own vision and targets. People get to express more and more of their own vision as they progress and achieve better results. I think a coaching approach works best when evaluating own results and own performance, not the general operational procedures or general approach of the department. I'd rather give a few options and state I'm going to make a decision listening to the input provided, rather than throwing the decision towards the public and going with whatever achieves consensus. That only works, in my view, in very particular cases where people will never productively follow a non-consensual approach.
The types work similar to these leadership styles. Command & control is a very "Driver"-type behavior or leadership style. Coaching and setting a vision are more towards the expressive side, pitching ideas and creating a demand for a particular way of doing things. Democracy is a very harmonic, affiliative approach, one I consider not very often palatable because other styles of leadership can achieve the same without throwing away your right to a final decision on your own terms.
That's my two cents, at least! Hope you found this somewhat insightful if you read this far!
Great video! exactly what I've been questioned for. Thank you for sharing!
Great work sussane. God bless u
Wonderful presentation. An inspiration from Carl jung's theory
That's excellent.
Thanks, I would like to understand deeply driver and expressive people.
Thanks a lot. Good useful information. To the point. No useless chit-chat.
Now I have to see to best fit these people I work with into these categories. ;-)
Thank you!
Awesome! This is so necessary.
know thyself
I am included in Driver and analytical
Thanks Susanne....this was very helpful.
Great video, thank you :)
Very useful thank you
Great video!I like the analysis,very useful.
Excellent very very good
This is the one video I was looking for thank you
So glad you found what you were looking for:)
Amazing! Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Thanku for an amazing video. I am yellow- expressive type.
I have a question, how to know which category/type the other person falls in if we are new to business..
Mmm I think, mentioning DISC here would be appropriate
this is a very good video.. thanks.
Thank you!
This is a great video.
Thanks, Kristin!
Great Video, I am High C and High S. I am a business owner, what disc style should my;
Project Manager be? High D and High C?
Acquisitions Specialist be? High D and High I?
Office Manager be? High S and High C?
nicely done!
I am like cat, love to curl and sleep in warm. So which quadrant, I belong? Thank you very much. really informative
Exactly
Great video
Glad you enjoyed!
It's The Same with DISC Personality?
صحيح يشجعون الفاشل حتى ينجح و نحن نحارب الناجح حسدا حتى يفشل
Balance your humor, change your life
How food affects your well being.
Every person has a unique humor makeup representing his healthy state. . When this makeup is understood and the proper foods are consumed, it will help the body to regain power and it will bring it to an optimum level and restore humoral balance.
Avicenna (980-1037 AD) believed that certain human moods, emotions and behaviors were caused by an excess or lack of bodily fluids called humors. Types of humors are: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. Every human has a different composition of these four types of humors. This is important because all aspects of our lives are influenced by the makeup of our bodies. The type of food we eat can have a significant impact on all of our organs and nerves from the brain to the heart, stomach, liver, kidneys and colon. Eating a poor diet can have enormous consequences. In the simplest cases, one can observe, for example, the consumption of a date that immediately produces acne. This is the body’s response to the food consumed. Also, a proper diet and good digestion are considered to maintain humoral balance. This book explores how your optimal diet will achieve the humoral balance needed for the healthiest you.
More information in this book 👇👇
www.amazon.com/Balance-your-Humor-change-life/dp/1978149212
Also help :
WHY SHOULD I KNOW MY TEMPERAMENT?
HOW IS TEMPERAMENT DIFFERENT FROM PERSONALITY?
DOES TEMPERAMENT DEFINE YOU?
Understand yourself and others, know yourself, love other’s.
REJUVENATION: EXTROVERT OR INTROVERT.
Understand why people behave in different ways.
Which Career Path You Should Take Based on Your Personality Type and more fallow:
instagram.com/balance_your_humor?igshid=1a8srw1yl8fsx
wow this is actually really useful, thank you for sharing such informational video!!
cool
Is it possible to be a mixture of two or more of them?!
Yes you're correct, most people do show a mix of traits, it's not always black and white.
how can I identify the person type ??
Words, Body language and decision making patterns help
Very good information, I would however like to see another video on how to deal with people that are predominately more than one color. I for example am part of the very small percentage of personalities that am perfectly rounded in every quadrant and am not predominate in any one particular area. Again thank you for the information as this does apply to probably 85% of the population, I'm just curious to learn about the few "exceptions to the rule" as well. :)
Blue
New-Age Astrology
What is a stakeholder?
Hi Viviana! Take a look at this article to learn more about stakeholders: www.projectmanager.com/blog/stakeholder-analysis-101#:~:text=A%20stakeholder%20is%20anyone%20that,as%20executives%20and%20team%20members.
Good, simple and yet very useful ideas. May I ask what is the source or parallels of this wisdom?
It sounds a bit like Task Orientation vs Relationship Orientation from the theories of Fons Trompenaars.
Not sure I can answer your question, but if you look up Susanne Madsen you'll find her website where you might find what you're looking for. Good luck.
It's based on Carl Jung's work. Look up DISC.
I'm more red and blue.
tried it....I failed miserably....because everyone wants me to chang their behavior towards them...why doesn't anyone want to change their behavior for me? LOL
There you go ...
1. I as Driver: I NEED, I WANT AAAAAAA, 2. I TO an Expressive: How is your weekend, by the way please can you ... 3. I TO an Amiable: You look pretty today. :-) hey Is it possible to ... 4. I To analytical .. Here is the problem, by when can you provide me details ..
Green
My wife has a new executive position at a non profit, and its appalling how much time and money they spend learning these things. I especially enjoy watching her try to manipulate our home with her new techniques. Sigh...
analitical
sometimes it's anoying...
Anal itical
DISC
Errrr, how to adapt my style? 🙄
I am none goddamit
That was somehow too stereotypical.