3 ms·

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not about typecasting a individual person. It's about recognizing that there are these divisions in the

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. It's not about typecasting a individual person. It's about recognizing that there are these divisions in the work that's available. It's a feature of the environment, and you should recognize it and your relationship with it. Then you can be aware, for your own good, of where your preferences and strengths lie, and make conscious decisions about what to take on, whether working on your core competencies is wallowing or increasing your depth; whether a stretch would constitute "levelling up" or just stress. (Incidentally, in response to your swipe at Meyers-Briggs, the same is true there: it's a tool to help you recognize your own inclinations and be aware of them so that you can grow meaningfully and purposefully. It's not for boxing yourself in and saying, "I can't/shouldn't do that because I'm an ABCD".)

watwut 7y ago
People do treat these as binary typecasting instead of shifting scales. On the leadership side, it means that they will treat as immutable personality type something that may be just reaction to the position you are in. And once you self-identify as pioneer (because it sounds cool) you just become more of pioneer and prevent yourself advantages of process (or vice versa). That is similar to the same problem as with Meyer-Briggs - most people are in the middle of all scales and their result shift over time. Those in the extreme end are rare. But both extreme and and middle get the same type description. And you end up inflexibly casted in one group although you are more similar to people in different groups that are also in the center then to extremes of own group.