We all face a number of situations every day, and we must choose how we respond. Many of these situations are routine, and we play out an automatic reaction that doesn’t involve much contemplation or judgement. Others are merely familiar, and we can draw upon previous similar experiences to react appropriately. But some situations are new, and these require us to improvise.
Higher stakes mean higher stress, and that can make ideal reactions more difficult. Ordering a cup of coffee might be routine, but ordering it from a person you have a crush on might require more consideration. The same is true of chatting with the boss versus a friendly coworker, or of situations that demand an element of technical skill and judgment. Helping a friend set up a new entertainment system affords a variety of options, from casual experimentation to a slow and thorough reading of the instructions – being at the scene of an accident and being pressed to give emergency medical aid requires a very different approach.
Training is essential to many of these situations, but there are also those personality types who seem to flow through a crisis with a cool head whether they technically know what they’re doing or not. To find out who these types are, we asked our community if they agreed or disagreed with the statement “You usually know immediately how to react in a situation.” Take a look at the results:
There certainly does seem to be a rather clear split. Notably, Extraverts confirmed their reputation for responding to crises, and Turbulent personality types hinted at their alarm in unexpected situations. Let’s take a step back and look at the Roles and Strategies to explore the trends.
Roles
Diplomats (62% agreeing)
Only 62% of Diplomat personality types agreed, the lowest of any Role. While a majority of Diplomats reported that they usually know how to react in a situation, their relatively lower response might have something to do with their attunement to people rather than things and systems. They are less apt to make quick, dispassionate, fact-based decisions because they take more time to consider the social implications of their actions. In a high-stress situation, Diplomats may also be affected by the emotions of the people around them – these personalities need to take into account the circumstances of others, and if those circumstances are chaotic, it can slow things down.
Explorers (63%)
The number of Explorers who agreed (63%) was surprisingly low, since Explorer personality types are naturally creative improvisers. The key to understanding their lower reported agreement might lie in the phrasing of the research statement. Explorers might not really feel that they know how to react, because that implies foreknowledge. However, Explorers are very likely to figure it out, and end up with quick, successful reactions due to improvisation.
The personality type that agreed the least was the Turbulent Adventurer (ISFP-T), at 38%. They tend to be a bit shy in some social situations, and less confident in making decisions they can’t undo. While they are extremely creative and intelligent, their reactions may require more consideration than decisiveness. Turbulent Adventurers might want to just feel things out and see how they go, rather than jump in and decide how they will be. It isn’t that they lack the ability to master a situation, but that they prefer to see where it takes them.
Sentinels (66%)
Two-thirds (66%) of Sentinels agreed. One can imagine that the other third of Sentinel personalities who did not agree were put off by a requirement for immediate action, as they usually operate better in a more organized manner. Sentinels’ wisdom and strength often comes from well-reasoned concern instead of lightning-fast decision, so they may perform better when they are given more time to consider their course of action (and when their stress levels are lower). But that same conservative approach is what leads to their higher response: their preponderance of planning means that situations are rarely unexpected, allowing them to act with confidence.
Analysts (70%)
Analysts agreed the most out of any Role (70%). We can easily assume that fact- and knowledge-hungry Analysts would have diverse skill sets to draw upon in any situation. While they’re not necessarily always the best improvisers, Analyst personality types often consider every possible angle, so they are likely to have a wide range of ideas and observations ready in their minds. Had the research question explored taking action on those considerations, however, it may have been a different story.
The personality type that agreed the most was the Assertive Commander (ENTJ-A), at 90%. Fact-based Thinking types may be better equipped for a rapid response to different types of situations, and Commanders are that rare type to have both the far-reaching imagination and the rational mindset to plan for and deal with diverse situations. This is backed by the personal assurance to feel ready for challenges and the social inclination that makes dealing with people comfortable for them (if not necessarily for everyone else).
Strategies
We can easily see the correlations here: Extraverted and Assertive personality types are more likely to agree. Now, let’s think about why, and how this translates into the Strategies.
Constant Improvement (45% agreeing)
Constant Improvers agreed the least, even though they tend to be excellent achievers and generally very capable. They certainly feel less confident though, and as a result they might not immediately know how to react in some situations. In other situations, Constant Improvers may well have the tools to act successfully, but their Turbulent Identities might cause them to overthink their response. These personalities may be so concerned with perfection that they hesitate to act, wanting to be absolutely sure of their course before engaging it – if anyone is going to read the instructions for how to apply a much-needed bandage correctly, it’s a Constant Improver.
Social Engagement (65%)
Social Engagers have the Extraverted tendency to thrive in social situations, but their more moderate agreement corresponds to their Turbulent Identities. While they are adept navigators of social situations, Social Engagers might not be as confident in other areas, and might second-guess themselves more often. Much of this likely comes from experience: both Extraverted and Turbulent traits are linked to impulsiveness, but those reactions aren’t always successful. A few high-profile failures resulting from poor planning can lead to a more considered approach, and this concern and introspection leads to lower agreement.
Confident Individualism (70%)
Confident Individualists agree more based on self-assurance and character strength. These personality types might simply feel more ready to meet any situation, certain that they will be able to perform well. However, their response is probably tempered by their Introversion, which comes paired with a generally inward focus. These types are often masters of the self and their own space, but complex external situations might be more jarring, and may cause a little more uncertainty, delaying their reactions.
People Mastery (85%)
People Masters have the same Assertive Identity, but add to that the strength of their outward and social confidence and it’s no surprise that these personalities showed the highest agreement of all the Strategies. Not only are they self-assured in most situations, but People Masters shine brightly and act boldly when dealing with people. This self-confidence does not necessarily mean that they possess more knowledge than other Strategies, or even that they are more successful in their reactions, but perhaps that they are quicker and more confident when applying what they do know, and more understanding of the fact that you can do everything right and still lose.
Conclusions
What about you? What situations are your Achilles’ heel, and give you pause?