


































Advances in Business Research 2011 Volume 2.pdf


Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

104 

 

Temperament Talk of “Managers Chosen as Leaders” in a Family Owned Corporation: 

From Descriptors to Dialogue 
 

Anna Carol Lampe, Rockhurst University 
 

 

A workshop built on temperament theory will not solve the financial woes of a company. Nevertheless, a 
workshop designed and based solely on temperament theory or research can diminish its outcomes. If an 

organization wants to change its current ways of believing, knowing, and doing, replicating the 
workshop’s impersonal dialogue process can help facilitate the change. At Celebration, Inc. dialogue 
proved to be more powerful than descriptors especially when embedded in workshop content.   
 

 

Celebration, Inc. is a privately held American corporation that helps people celebrate every day and 

special occasions. The manufacturing company produces more than 12,000,000 million products a day in 

20 major product lines and distributes them in nearly 100 countries. Consumers buy its products in more 

than 40,000 different stores including stores that carry the name Celebrate!, drug stores, superstores, and 

grocery stores.  

Celebrations, Inc. had failed to meet several of its financial targets. The CEO decided that the 

company needed a new management team and brought in the Management Succession team of the 

Human Resource Division (HR) to facilitate the selection. This team believed that senior management 

had chosen the current management team based solely on performance and likeability and that a 

preponderance of the same personality temperament had contributed to groupthink, one-dimensional 

decision-making, and an unbalanced organizational leadership culture.   

Research indicated that high performing organizations had cultures that included all four 

temperaments (Demarest, 1995) and as many different personality types as possible. This time the 

Management Succession team deliberately ensured a more balanced team of personality temperaments. It 

identified 218 “managers chosen as leaders” who the members believed would do a superior job of 

leading the company through significant marketplace and organizational changes. These high performing 

individuals represented nearly all 16 personality types (see Table 1). In less than two months, the 

Management Succession team had completed its assignment, and the Learning and Development team 

began to prepare the straw man for the workshop content that would ready the new management team. 
 

Table 1: Type Representation in “Managers Chosen As Leaders” vs.  

CPP Sample vs. Keirsey Base Population Sample 
 

ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ 

Study: 16.0% 

CPP: 17.0% 

Base: 11.6% 

Study: 3.0% 

CPP: 3.4% 

Base: 13.8% 

Study: 5.0% 

CPP: 1.9% 

Base: 1.5% 

Study: 6.0% 

CPP: 10.0% 

Base: 2.1% 

ISTP ISFP INFP INTP 

Study: 4.0% 

CPP: 3.4% 
Base: 5.4% 

Study: 1.0% 

CPP: 1.2% 
Base: 8.8% 

Study: 6.9% 

CPP: 2.7% 
Base: 4.4% 

Study: 6.0% 

CPP: 6.6% 
Base: 3.3% 

ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP 

Study: 3.0% 

CPP: 3.2% 
Base: 4.3% 

Study: 0.1% 

CPP: 1.4% 
Base: 8.5% 

Study: 7.0% 

CPP: 5.1% 
Base: 8.1% 

Study: 7.0% 

CPP: 8.1% 
Base: 3.2% 

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ 

Study: 15.0% 
CPP: 15.8% 

Base: 8.7% 

Study: 6.0% 
CPP: 3.6% 

Base: 12.3% 

Study: 4.0% 
CPP: 3.4% 

Base: 2.5% 

Study: 11.0% 
CPP: 13.1% 

Base: 1.8% 

 

Sources: Business Research Manager; Schaubhut, N. & Thompson, R. 2008. MBTI type tables for occupations. Mountain View, CA: CPP; 
Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. 1978.  Please understand me: Character and temperament types (3rd Ed.).  Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books. 

 
 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

105 

 

On a Monday morning, several members of the Human Resource Division sat around a table to hear 

the Learning and Development (L&D) team’s vision of the workshop content. Celebration, Inc. had 

invested heavily in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® (MBTI®), and all of HR agreed that each of the 

four workshops would be comprised of people who shared the same temperament (Keirsey, 1978). The 

L&D team members, who had administered and interpreted the MBTI® sessions to over 2500 employees, 

were adamant they could develop content specific to each workshop simply by referencing the materials 

they used in their type and temperament workshops (Myers and McCaulley, 1992; Demarest, 1995; 

Hirsch and Kummerow, 1998), coupled with additional research and literature of consultants and theorists 

(Keirsey and Bates, 1978; Garden, 1988; Barr and Barr, 1989; Montgomery, 1989, 1990, 1993; Isachsen 

and Berens, 1995; Keirsey, 1998; Bridges, 2000; Engler, 2003; Michael 2003) that lined their library 

shelves. The Organizational Development team members, part of the Human Resource Division who also 

sat at the table, were not so convinced. They did not believe that the literature and descriptors could 

adequately take into account either Celebrations’ culture or the personal experiences of the members of 

the new management team. After a great deal of discussion, the meeting ended with agreement from the 

L&D team members to take a step back, ask the Celebrations’ Business Research Division to conduct 

some qualitative research, and validate whether the way the new leaders “talked” about change and 

leadership mirrored that of the descriptors in the research and literature that the team intended to use.    
 

LITERATURE REVIEW 
 

Managers and Leaders 
 

Most scholars and researchers agree that managers and leaders are different. According to Alan 

Murray (2010), “The manager’s job is to plan, organize, and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and 

motivate.” Lee Barr and Norma Barr (1989) differentiated leadership from management this way: 

“Management affects work; leadership affect people.” Warren Bennis (1989) composed a list of the 

differences: “The manager administers; the leader innovates. The manager is a copy; the leader is an 

original. The manager maintains; the leader develops.” Richard Pascale (1990) defined the differences 

this way: “Managers think incrementally, whilst leaders think radically. Managers do things right, while 

leaders do the right things.”   

For the purpose of this research, the author used the words “managers” and “leaders” interchangeably. 

The CEO of Celebrations, Inc. made this determination when in a meeting he verbalized that the Human 

Resource Division had chosen “managers who already or would assume the top leadership positions in 

the company.” 
 

Type and Temperament 
 

Scholars and organizational theorists have advanced countless theories of leadership. Two of the 

theories used to understand leadership are those of type and temperament. They allow others to 

understand leaders, leaders to understand others, and leaders to understand themselves. Whereas much 

research has documented how type and temperament differ among leaders (Keirsey and Bates, 1978; Barr 

and Barr, 1989; Keirsey, 1998; Montgomery, 1989, 1990, 1993; Keirsey and Choiniere, 1992; Stavrou et 

al., 2005; Grant et al., 2011), little research exists as to how leaders “talk” about what they do and how 

they do it.   

Sorting and classifying people according to their temperaments began thousands of years ago. A great 

many classificatory schemes for temperament based on human behavior have surfaced throughout history, 

dating back to such men as Hippocrates, Plato, and Aristotle. One of the earliest methods of sorting and 

classifying was a theory devised by Hippocrates. Based on his own observations and logic, Hippocrates 

suggested that the four bodily fluids were at the root of all health and personality (Jones, 1931). Nearly 

1700 years later, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized these ideas by organizing the 

constructs along the two axes of feelings and activity (Engler, 2003). 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

106 

 

During the 1800s, the psychologist Wilhelm Wundt (Blumenthal, 2001) proposed that the four 

temperaments fell along the axes of changeability and emotionality. The philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm 

Nietzsche, introduced his famous distinction between the Apollonian (rational) element in human nature 

and the Dionysian (passionate) element (Nietzsche et al., 1872). Another philosopher, Erich Adickes 

(1907), divided man into four worldviews: dogmatic, agnostic, traditional, and innovative.   

Carl G. Jung, a Swiss psychiatrist, introduced the theory of psychological type in the 1920s. Jung 

discussed the various aspects of consciousness and the attitudes that the mind might take toward the 

world in his book, Psychological Types (Jung and Baynes, 1921). Shortly after the publication of the 

book, Ernst Kretschmer (1925) identified abnormal behaviors by temperaments: hyperesthetic, anesthetic, 

melancholic and hypomanic. Three years later, Eduard Spränger (1928) identified six human values that 

set apart people: religious, theoretic, economic, social, political, and artistic.   

Katharine Briggs and Isabel Myers, mother and daughter, both astute observers of human behavior, 

put to practical use the preferences from Carl Jung’s typological theories. During the 1940s, they 

developed and published their instrument, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ® (MBTI®) that identified 16 

personality types (Saunders, 1995).  Since then, the MBTI® has evolved and been perfected through 

continued test research (Myers and McCaulley, 1992; Schaubhut and Thompson, 2008). 

Inspired by the work of Kretschmer and Spränger, the modern psychologist, David Keirsey also noted 

the consistent tendency of human behavior to sort itself. Keirsey combined Kretschmer's temperament 

hypothesis with Jung's behavior description and Nietzsche's Greek typology and identified four patterns: 

Sensing Perceiver (SP), Sensing Judger (SJ), Intuitive Thinker (NT), and Intuitive Feeler (NF) (Keirsey 

and Bates, 1978). Keirsey mapped patterns to the existing Myers-Briggs system and labeled the four basic 

temperaments as the Artisan, the Guardian, the Rational, and the Idealist (Keirsey and Bates, 1978).  

Later, Demarest (1995) further associated these temperaments with models of management:  the scientific 

management model (SJ), the contingency model (SP), the social man model (NF), and the strategic 

management model (NT). These four temperaments were not simply arbitrary collections of 

characteristics but the interaction of the two basic dimensions of human behavior: communication and 

action, i.e., what people said and did. 

Type literature contains substantial research on how type preferences may be relevant to human 

behavior and activities, such as career choice (Daub et al., 2000), job satisfaction (Garden, 1988), and 

organizational development (Fleenor et al., 1998; Hirsch and Kummerow, 1998). In reviewing research 

on the use of the MBTI® in management and leadership, Walck (1996) found attempts to predict 

managers’ behaviors from type. Rousch and Atwater (1992) used the MBTI® to understand 

transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. Stavrou et al., (2005) proposed a theoretical 

temperament framework for an exploration of the relationship among organizational culture, leader 

personality, and the success of hereditary transitions in family businesses. Most recently, Grant et al., 

(2011) discussed theoretical and practical implications for leadership and proactivity.   

A substantial body of leadership research also examined the associations between dimensions of the 

MBTI® and leadership indices. McCaulley (1990) examined several comprehensive MBTI® databases 

containing scores from more than 92,000 subjects, ranging from college students to managers from all 

organizational levels in numerous industries. Zaccaro (2001) used the tables from McCaulley to compare 

successful executives with a sample of middle and lower-level managers and unsuccessful executives.     
 

Organizational Culture 
 

  Few concepts in organizational theory have as many different and competing definitions as does 

“organizational culture.” In exploring culture, Selznick (1957) moved below the conscious level of 

organizations to capture a deeper, more powerful force in everyday life. Meyerson (1991) noted that 

culture was “the code word for the subjective side of organizational life,” and its study represented an 

“ontological rebellion against the dominant scientific paradigm.”   

Although the term “corporate culture” was initially the popular term used in the press (Jordan, 1994), 

the term “organizational culture” settled into consulting and academia to describe a tool used in studying 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

107 

 

organizations. “Organizational culture” became popular in both anthropology and management in the 

early 80s when Pascale and Athos (1981) published a book stating that Japan’s economic success was due 

largely to its very strong “corporate cultures.” Deal and Kennedy (1982) and Peters and Waterman (1982) 

published books that advocated a strong “corporate culture” as the key to corporate success. The 

“organizational culture” literature followed many paths and has since “concentrated on defining the 

concept; prescribing methods of study, diagnosis, and measurement; discussing the possibility of culture 

change and often prescribing change methods; and recommending methods to evaluate the extent and 

success of change” (Lewis, 1996). Finally, William Bridges (2000) argued that organizations differ in 

character just as much as individuals do. Using the framework of MBTI® and its personality types, 

Bridges believed an organization's character shaped how managers made decisions, received ideas, and 

treated employees; how the organization accepted or rejected change; and how such factors affected 

company performance. 
 

Research Methods 
 

A Celebrations, Inc. Business Research Manager conducted all the research, analyzed the data, 

reported the results, and made recommendations. She used multiple data sources including focus groups 

(Merton and Kendall, 1946; Calori and Sarnin, 1991); interviews (Ouchi and Johnson, 1974; Merriam, 

1988; Bogdan and Biklen, 1992); and conversations (Atkinson and Heritage, 1984). According to Lincoln 

and Guba (1985), using multiple data sources was advantageous because it allowed the researcher to 

deepen her understanding and provided the material that contributed to credible interpretation (Eisner, 

1991).   
 

Survey Instrument  
 

All of the “managers chosen as leaders” had taken the MBTI® instrument, designed by Katharine 

Briggs and Isabel Myers and the most widely used personality assessment in the world (Schaubhut and 

Thompson, 2008). Briggs and Myers applied Carl Jung’s theory of psychological type and developed a 

psychometric questionnaire that measured psychological preferences in how people perceived the world 

and made decisions. “The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in behavior is 

actually quite orderly and consistent” (Myers and McCaulley, 1992). Their theory suggested that people 

have opposite ways of: 
 

  gaining energy: extraversion (E) or introversion (I) 

  gathering information: sensing (S) or intuition (N) 

  coming to a conclusion about that information: thinking (T) or feeling (F), and 

  dealing with the world: judging (J) or perceiving (P)      
 

Based on the results of the MBTI® (see Table 1) above, the Business Research Manager further 

separated the participants by Keirsey’s temperaments (see Table 2). His framework narrowed the 16 types 

into four temperaments. Myers-Briggs’ type and Keirsey’s temperament had two completely different 

theoretical bases; however, the same words used to describe type and temperament made for a common 

language (Keirsey & Bates, 1978). 
 

Table 2: Temperament Representation in “Managers Chosen as Leaders” vs.  

Leaders in a CPP Sample of Leaders vs. Keirsey’s Base Population Sample 
 

Temperament % in Study % CPP Sample % Keirsey 

SJ 39 42 45 

SP 8 15 40 

NF 23 15 10 

NT 30 28 5 

Total 100% 100% 100% 

 

Sources: Research Manager; Schaubhut, N. & Thompson, R. 2008. MBTI type tables for occupations. Mountain View, CA: CPP; Keirsey, D. & 

Bates, M. 1978. Please understand me: Character and temperament types (3rd Ed.). Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books. 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

108 

 

Data Collection 
 

The Business Research Manager conducted eight 60-minute focus groups with 64 participants: two 

groups of eight each of NT, NF, SJ, and SP temperaments; eight one-on-one interviews that included two 

each of NT, NF, SJ, and SP temperaments; and 12 formal and 8 informal conversations with participants 

from the workshop. To ensure the validity of their temperaments, the Business Research Manager ensured 

all participants had clear or very clear preference scores based on the recommendation of Michael’s 

research (Michael, 2003). She used the same statements for all research methods: describe your style of 

leadership; describe how your leadership style can effect change; and describe how the organizational 

culture may help or hinder you to lead. 
 

Analysis 
 

In focus groups, conversations, and interviews segregated by temperaments, the 84 “managers chosen 

as leaders” talked openly and honestly about their perspectives, thoughts, and feelings about leadership, 

change, and the culture in which they led. These temperament groups included participants who 

represented the scientific management model (SJ), the contingency model (SP), the social man model 

(NF), and the strategic management model (NT) (Demarest, 1995). According to Bridges (2000), 

Celebrations, Inc. represented the scientific management model (SJ), and according to the corporate 

MBTI® databases, nearly 60% of the people on the old management team had this temperament, as well. 

Men like Frederick Taylor and Henry Gantt defined the scientific management model (SJ) and 

developed approaches to management based on scientific analysis (Demarest, 1995). They did not accept 

the belief that management skills were unique gifts acquired as an accident of birth and felt that people 

could learn management skills. The literature descriptors for this temperament included “efficiency,” a 

“one best way,” and “continuously looking for a better way of doing the job” (Table 3). Thirty nine 

percent of the “managers chosen as leaders” possessed the scientific management (SJ) temperament.   

These “managers chosen as leaders” talked about the “systems and structures inherent in the 

company’s business model” and how it was much easier to “run business as usual” than try to change it. 

They talked about “larger-than-life systems,” and how they doubted “whether leaders have the ability to 

change very complex systems that have been in place for over half a century.” They talked about their 

frustration with “complex systems, policies, procedures, and practices” that perpetuated themselves and 

the business and the systems that made “risk-taking or innovation next to impossible.” 

One woman talked about the irony of being “chosen as a leader” since she felt some of her peers saw 

her as “part of the problem” and “probably standing in the way of change.” In addition, although these 

leaders said, “many things need to be changed,” some managers expressed fear of being set up for failure.  

Another manager said, “Unless the company is willing to blow up some of the systems and start from 

scratch, no amount of traditional tweaking is going to impact the way we currently do business. The 

systems that were the benchmark for innovation in the 60s are the dinosaurs that are standing on top of 

our feet today.” These managers supported the corporation’s “desire to change” and one man was “not 

sure that the people at the very top have any idea of what kind of change really needs to take place.”    

Leaders like Ken Blanchard and Peter Drucker defined the contingency model (SP) (Demarest, 1995).  

They believed that managers needed to be flexible in their management style, to analyze each new 

situation, and to come to a decision based on the facts presented rather than on some all-inclusive 

theoretical model of management. The literature descriptors for this temperament included “flexibility,” 

“quick handling of the unexpected,” “risk-taking,” and “being quick to see ‘what is’ and ‘what is needed 

next’” (Table 3). Only 8% of the “managers chosen as leaders” had the contingency model (SP) of 

temperament, and according to the corporate data bases, keeping any employee with this temperament at 

the company was difficult. 

Although fewer in numbers, these animated and energized leaders talked about leadership and change 

somewhat differently that the SJ temperament group. One woman talked about being “excited for the first 

time in a long time.” More than one leader said that “leaving the company for another” was always top of 

mind because Celebrations was “boring” and “nothing exciting ever happens.” Like the SJ temperament, 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

109 

 

the SP temperament also felt that the company was “committed to doing the same things day in and day 

out” and that even if a leader had a great idea, it would go “unheard and unnoticed.” They talked about 

“the great ideas” that they “brought before senior leadership” only to be “shot down” because the ideas 

were not “aligned with how we do things around here.” 
 

Table 3:  Leadership & Management Temperament Descriptors 
 

Temperament SJ SP NF NT 

Organizational  

Focus 

Hierarchy; continuously 

looking for a better way 
of doing the job. 

Immediate needs  Growth  Vision  

Leadership Skills Logistics, facilitation,  

operations-oriented 

Tactics, performance 

opportunity-oriented 

Diplomacy,  relationship-

oriented 

Strategy, design, strategy-

oriented 

Competencies Supervise, provide, 

inspect, find facts 

Promote, perform,  tryout, 

compose 

Teach, reveal, divine, 

predict, interpret 

Marshall, invent,  design, 

hypothesize 

Contributions  

Acknowledged  

Timely output;  Quick handling of the 

unexpected 

Something personal  Strategies & analysis 

Assets 

 

Best organized, the most 

grounded in reality, & the 

most realistic. 

Meet immediate situational 

needs, respond quickly, 

handle emergencies well 

Sensitive to people & their 

time; give people all the 

time they need; use time for 
finding the purpose 

Think of time as 

conceptual, impersonal 

Liabilities Rigid about schedules, 

hooked on responsibility, 
and cannot relax.  0nly 

follow standard operating 

procedures, overlook 
interpersonal issues. 

Scatter their effort, change 

direction often, act as if 
there’s always tomorrow 

Can’t say no, feel guilty if 

don't give others time, 
neglect own needs, spend 

time with people first, & 

task later, struggle with 
deadlines 

Feel no need to act after 

thinking through 
something, devoted to 

intellectual work with no 

play, have no time for 
others’ priorities,   

Values Efficiency: One best way.  

Caution, accuracy, hard 
work, producing & 

maintaining life, 

preserving & keeping,  
regulating, avoiding 

harm, economy of energy 

& time, usefulness, 
comfort 

Flexibility: Risk-taking, 

experiencing & perceiving, 
altering form, respond to 

impulses, sensuous, self 

enjoyment, immediate 
feelings, beauty, 

expressing an experience, 

freedom of action 

Potential: Autonomy, 

harmony & cooperation, 
Seeking highest value, unity, 

beyond the senses, ethics & 

morality, deep personal 
meaning, identity, 

interpreting, & values 

Competency: Intelligence, 

concepts & ideas, 
theories, logic, objective 

knowledge & truth, 

consistency in thought, 
solve the problem, general 

principles, studying 

Setting Direction Able to recall & 

synthesize data & past 
experiences to provide 

base on which to build 

future 

Generate options that will 

benefit individuals; be 
quick to see “what is” and 

what’s needed next 

Create idealistic goals; 

brainstorm multiple visions 
& paths for realizing them. 

Decide what they want & 

advocate for it; able to 
quickly weigh alternative 

& articulate pros & cons  

 Define clear roles & 

deadlines so that others 

know what to do and by 
when, track progress to 

motivate engagement. 

Have a friendly, outgoing 

style & an optimistic 

outlook; create rapport & 
inspire followers; values 

input from others 

Inspire others toward a 

vision; appreciates others & 

includes their input; spends 
time understanding values & 

needs of employees  

Possess competence & 

confidence; can attract 

others who want to be 
seen as winners; effective 

at gaining political 

support for plans. 

 

These “managers chosen as leaders” emphasized “how boring” it was to come to work and how there 

was “nothing to lead” because the company ran by itself. Another leader said many of her “friends left the 

company after only a couple of years because “they were so bored.” She was “sorry to see them leave 

because they were smart and had a lot to contribute to helping the company meet its financial goals.” 

Overall, these leaders said they were “excited” about “the possibility of real change” and were 

“anxious to get things going.” They were confident that they could “make an immediate impact” if given 

a chance. They believed they brought “a sense of excitement and real energy to the company” that could 

be exponentially greater “if given something worthwhile to change.” One manager reflected on a time he 

was most excited about coming to work, “A ‘special project’ provided my team an opportunity to try new 

and different ways of testing products in the marketplace.” He ended by saying, “Those assignments are 

rare.”   

Leaders like Elton Mayo, who carried out the Hawthorne studies, and Abraham Maslow, creator of 

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, defined the social man model (NF) (Demarest, 1995). They believed that 

employees had needs and aspirations that extended beyond the workplace and that these needs were an 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

110 

 

integral part of the management process. The literature descriptors for this temperament included “deep 

personal meaning,” “sensitive to people and their time,” and “harmony and cooperation” (See Table 3).  

About 23% of the “managers chosen as leaders” possessed this temperament. 

“Managers chosen as leaders” with the social man temperament (NF) talked about “leading through 

caring and sharing.” They talked about the “wonderful caring products” they designed, manufactured, and 

sold to consumers and talked about the products as if they possessed more human characteristics than 

inanimate ones. They talked about the “caring and sharing” that were “embedded in the culture” and that 

played out in different “rituals and traditions celebrated in the company.” They believed that their style of 

leading was critical for the future success of the company because it supported employees who created the 

products that helped consumers share their feelings and sentiments. According to them, their leadership 

style, like the products they created, “represented the goodness in human beings.” 

These leaders also used the word “nice” in the context of their “caring and sharing” style of leadership. 

When one manager said, “Being nice and getting along with others has always been requirements of 

employment,” everyone else nodded their heads. One 35-year manager said, “The founder always hired 

people who he believed were walking greeting cards.”    

When asked if anything in the culture impeded the ability to lead, one leader said that the same 

“niceness” that made the company a good place to work also “made it easy for those in power to create 

systems which exploited and oppressed some leaders and not others.” Others agreed that this lack of open 

and honest feedback “fostered a culture in which leaders continued in their ways of doing things the same 

old way.”   

Whereas these leaders’ temperament reflected the culture of “niceness,” the culture frustrated them 

because it did not allow them to “question or talk about what was really going on” and may have 

contributed to the failure to meet the company’s financial goals. These leaders hungered for “honest 

communication and authenticity.” Because they did not believe they had permission to discuss certain 

subjects, they used “large amounts of unproductive energy trying to figure out how to talk about things” 

instead of using that energy on the business.   

Lastly, men like Jay Forester with his pioneer work in simulation and Alvin Toffler with his work in 

the digital and communication revolution insisted that managers must be willing to take great leaps of 

faith beyond the demands of daily operations (Demarest, 1995). Their strategic management model (NT) 

supported the notion that managers must build organizations to support new, yet to be developed ideas. 

The effect of dynamic change on organizations supported their approach to the vision of management and 

leadership. The literature descriptors for this temperament included “competency,” “vision,” “strategies 

and analysis,” and “objective truth” (see Table 3). Whereas less than 10% of the United States possessed 

this temperament, nearly 30% of the “managers chosen as leaders” had it.  

These leaders, predominantly men, talked about their “goals and visions” and how they led by getting 

a lot of “political support.” They were full of fresh perspectives on how to achieve Celebrations’ vision 

and had a plethora of “ideas where change could occur.” They talked about how they were “energized by 

change” and how excited they were that the company was supporting a “long overdue change initiative.” 

They were excited about all the changes that they could make “to the current systems” and how those 

changes could “turn around the company.” They talked about “creating new strategies and new ways of 

doing business” that would address “the needs of the marketplace.” 

These leaders talked about “high performing companies” whose long-term success was tied to their 

ability “to be innovative and take risks.” They talked about Celebrations’ “inability to assess risk” and “its 

fear of cannibalization” i.e., taking away sales from existing core products. They talked about the 

company’s “culture of conservatism,” where “predictability always wins out over uncertainly.” One 

outspoken leader articulated it this way: “Our conservative cultural ways fuel predictability. It [They] 

ensures [ensure] that what has worked in the past continues to get reproduced.” Another leader added, 

“Risk-taking and innovation demand dealing with uncertainty--the opposite of predictability. 

Predictability reduces the possibility of failure by ensuring success, and the company only knows how to 

deal with success.” Another leader, as passionate as the other two, added, “Any failures, no matter how 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

111 

 

small, have been looked upon as something to be ashamed of. How can we innovate if we are afraid to 

fail?” 

The additional interviews and conversations confirmed the views expressed in the focus groups and 

contributed to the 200+ pages of transcripts. To compare the way the “managers chosen as leaders” talked 

about leadership and change as compared to the words used in the research and literature, the Business 

Research Manager searched the pages for the descriptors that the L&D team members provided (Table 3). 

Although she found the descriptors sprinkled throughout the transcripts, she noted that the “managers 

chosen as leaders” talked about leadership and change with far more breadth and depth than the 

descriptors could provide. Participants in all of the groups and interviews openly shared their perspectives 

and experiences, but they talked about them quite differently than did many consultants and theorists in 

their literature and research (Keirsey and Bates, 1978; Garden, 1988; Barr and Barr, 1989; Montgomery, 

1989, 1990, 1993; Myers and McCaulley, 1992; Demarest, 1995; Isachsen and Berens, 1995; Keirsey, 

1998; Hirsch and Kummerow, 1998; Bridges, 2000; Engler, 2003; Michael 2003). She recommended that 

the L&D team members accept the contested nature of the limitations of relying solely on the language of 

literature and reach beyond the scope of the descriptors to create more robust workshop content.   

To accomplish this, the Business Research Manager acknowledged the opportunities that type and 

temperament provided in understanding organizational dynamics and the importance of leveraging them 

in changing the organization. She suggested creating content that shared each group’s dialogue or “talk” 

as it related to discovering and interpreting cultural meaning. More so than the descriptors allowed, many 

of the “managers chosen as leaders,” although strangers in temperament, appeared to share a great deal of 

common ground in how the culture impacted their ability to lead, their sincere desire for the company to 

change, and a belief that they could personally make a difference. Using this common ground as a starting 

place, she believed the different temperaments could see that they shared many of the same deeply rooted 

cultural assumptions about the organization and shared more similarities than differences. Clearly, the 

L&D team members needed to acknowledge the complexity of individual personality and the inability of 

the descriptors to explain, clarify, or predict adequately the feelings and behaviors of the “managers 

chosen as leaders.”   
 

Conclusion 

 

The L&D team members proceeded with the recommendations and developed workshop content that 

incorporated the dialogue from the transcripts. Not unlike the verbal "dialoguing" process advocated by 

Senge (1990), the workshop participants began conversations by citing quotes or perspectives from the 

transcripts.  Using the anonymous content provided the participants a safe way to discuss the “talk” rather 

than the “people doing the talking.”  

This impersonal process also eliminated the need for those temperaments in the minority to verbalize 

their unpopular or unacceptable ways of doing and knowing in the workshop. Knowingly, or 

unknowingly, the largest temperament group (SJ) mirrored the organization’s temperament (SJ) (Bridges, 

2000), and, historically, this temperament had supported and perpetuated the current culture based solely 

on their numbers and their preference to keep business as usual. By focusing on the dialogue, rather than 

the people who created it, all temperaments communicated more openly and surfaced the kinds of 

potentially threatening information they had only previously discussed behind closed doors. They also 

began to deconstruct the old individual models of believing, knowing, and doing and began to co-create a 

new collective thought and voice that resonated with all temperaments. 

A workshop built on temperament theory will not solve the financial woes of a company. 

Nevertheless, a workshop designed and based solely on temperament theory or research can diminish its 

outcomes. If an organization wants to change its current ways of believing, knowing, and doing, 

replicating the workshop’s impersonal dialogue process can help facilitate the change. At Celebration, 

Inc. dialogue proved to be more powerful than descriptors especially when embedded in workshop 

content.   

 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

112 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Adickes, E. 1907. Character and weltunschauung. Tubingen, Germany. 
 

Argyris, C. 1977. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55: 115-125. 
 

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, 

CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 
 

Atkinson, J., & Heritage, J. 1984. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis.  

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 
 

Barr, L., & Barr, N. 1989. The leadership equation: Leadership, management, and the Myers-Briggs.  

Austin, TX: Eakin Press. 
 

Bennis, W. 1989.  On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 
 

Blumenthal, A. 2001. A Wundt primer: The operating characteristics of consciousness. In R. Rieber, & D. 

Robinson, (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology. New York: 

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 
 

Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 1992.  Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and 

methods.  Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.  
 

Bridges, W. 2000. The character of organizations: Using personality type in organization development.  

Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. 
 

Calori, R., & Sarnin, P. 1991. Corporate culture and economic performance: A French study.  

Organization Studies, 12: 49-74. 
 

Conger, J. 1985. Charismatic leadership.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
 

Daub, C., Friedman, S., Cresci, K., & Keyser, R. 2000. Frequencies of MBTI types among nursing 

assistants providing care to nursing home eligible individuals. Journal of Psychological Type, 54: 12-

16. 
 

Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: 

Addison-Wesley. 
 

Demarest, L. 1995. Using type with managers and leaders workshop. Atlanta, GA: CAPT. 
 

Eisner, E. 1991. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice.  

New York: Macmillan. 
 

Engler, B. 2003. Personality theories: An introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 
 

Fleenor, J., Schneider, B., Smith, D., & Taylor, S. 1998. Personality and organizations: A test of the 

homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 462-470.  
 

Garden, A. 1988. Jungian type, occupation, and burnout: An elaboration of an earlier study. Journal of 
Psychological Type, 14: 2–14.  

 

Gardner, J. 1990. On leadership. New York: Free Press. 
 

Grant, A., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. 2011. Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of 

employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 528-550. 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

113 

 

 

Hirsch, S., & Kummerow, J. 1998. Introduction to type in organizations. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting 

Psychologists Press.  
 

Isachsen, O., & Berens, L. 1995. Working together: A personality-centered approach to management.  

Phoenix, AZ: Institute for Management Development. 
 

Jones, H. 1931. Hippocrates, volume IV: Nature of man. Boston, MA:  Harvard University Press. 
 

Jordan, A. 1994. Practicing anthropology in corporate America: Consulting on organizational culture. 

Napa bulletin, 14: 3-16. 
 

Jung, C., & Baynes, H. 1921. Psychological types or the psychology of individuation. London: Kegan 

Paul Trench Trubner.  
 

Keirsey, D. 1998. Please understand me II: Character and temperament types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus 

Nemesis Books. 
 

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. 1978. Please understand me: Character and temperament types. Del Mar, CA: 

Prometheus Nemesis Books. 
 

Keirsey, D., & Choiniere, R. 1992. Presidential temperament: The unfolding of character in the forty 

presidents of the United States. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books. 
 

Kretschmer, E. 1925. Physique and character. London: Harcourt Brace. 
 

Lewis, D. 1996. Organizational culture saga from OD to TQM: A critical review of literature. Leadership 

and Organizational Development Journal, 17: 12-20. 
 

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 
 

McCaulley, M. 1990. The Myers-Briggs type indicator in counseling. Gainesville, FL: Center for the 

Application of Psychological Type. 
 

Merriam, S. 1988. Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass. 
 

Merton, R., & Kendall, P. 1946. The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51:  541-57.  
 

Meyerson, D. 1991. Normal ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. 

Louis, C. Lundberg, & J. Martin, (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 131-144). Beverly 

Hills, CA: Sage. 
 

Michael, J. 2003. Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator as a tool for leadership development? Apply 

with caution. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10: 68-81. 
 

Montgomery, S. 1989. The Pygmalion project: Love and coercion among the types: The Artisan. Del 

Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. 
 

Montgomery, S. 1990. The Pygmalion project: Love and coercion among the types: The Guardian. Del 

Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. 
 

Montgomery, S. 1993. The Pygmalion project: Love and coercion among the types: The Idealist. Del 

Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. 
 



Lampe                                                                                                                                                                            Advances in Business Research 

2011, Vol. 2, No. 1, 104-114 

114 

 

Murray, A. 2010. The Wall Street Journal guide to leadership: Lasting lessons from the best leadership 

minds of our time. New York: Harper Collins. 
 

Myers, I. & Myers, P. 1980. Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting 

Psychologists Press. 
 

Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. 1992. Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type 

indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 
 

Nietzsche, F., Tanner, M., & Whiteside, S. 1872. The birth of tragedy: Out of the spirit of the music.  

New York: Penguin Classics. 
 

Ouchi, W., & Johnson, R. 1974. Made in America (under Japanese management). Harvard Business 
Review, 52: 61-69. 

 

Pascale, R., & Athos, A. 1981. The art of Japanese management. New York: Simon and Schuster. 
 

Pascale, R. 1990. Managing on the edge. New York: Penguin Book. 
 

Peters, T., & Waterman, R. 1982. In search of excellence. New York: Warner Books. 
 

Rousch, P., & Atwater, L. 1992. Using the MBTI to understand transformational leadership and self-

perception accuracy. Military Psychology, l4: 17-34. 
 

Saunders, F. 1995. Katharine and Isabel: Mother's light, daughter's journey. Boston, MA: Nicholas 

Brealey Publishing. 
 

Schaubhut, N., & Thompson, R. 2008. MBTI type tables for occupations. Mountain View, CA: CPP. 
 

Schein, E. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
 

Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row. 
 

Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: 

Doubleday. 
 

Spränger, E. 1928. Types of men. New York: G. E. Stechert Company. 
 

Stavrou, E., Kleanthous, T., & Anastasious, T. 2005. Leadership personality and firm culture during 

hereditary transitions in family firms: Model development and empirical investigation. Journal of 
Small Business Management, 43: 187-206. 

 

Walck, C. 1996. Management and leadership. In A. Hammer, (Ed.), MBTI applications (pp. 55-79). Palo 

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 
 

Zaccaro, S. 2001. The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. 

Washington, DC: APA Books. 
 

 

Anna Carol Lampe is an assistant visiting professor of management at Rockhurst University. Her 

research interests include corporate culture and organizational behavior. She has been published in 

Journal of Culture and Organization; Gender, Work, and Organization; Advances in Business Research 

Journal, and others.   


